{"id":99004,"date":"1993-01-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-01-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993"},"modified":"2015-07-04T03:20:50","modified_gmt":"2015-07-03T21:50:50","slug":"rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993","title":{"rendered":"Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And &#8230; on 13 January, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And &#8230; on 13 January, 1993<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR  (1) 198, \t  1993 SCC  (1) 531<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Sawant<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sawant, P.B.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nRAMESHWAR DAYAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBANDA (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS.  AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/01\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nSAWANT, P.B.\nBENCH:\nSAWANT, P.B.\nRAY, G.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 SCR  (1) 198\t  1993 SCC  (1) 531\n JT 1993 (1)   213\t  1993 SCALE  (1)126\n\n\nACT:\nRes  Judicata--Suit  on\t basis of title\t by  sub-tenant\t for\nnullity\t   of\teviction   decree   and\t  injunction\tfrom\ndispossession--Decision\t binding  inter\t parties--Held,\t  to\noperate as res judicata, the first finding must be on  issue\nwhich was directly and substantially, and not  incidentally,\nin  issue in that suit--Decision of Small Causes  Court\t not\nreferring  to issue, nor giving any finding, cannot  operate\nas  res judicata--Question of jurisdiction of  Small  Causes\nCourt\tto  decide  issue  of  title  to   property   merely\nacademic--Provincial Small Causes Court Act, S.23.\nCode of Civil Procedure, 1908--S. 2(9), (2), (14), Order  XX\nRules  4(1)  and (5), Order XIV Rules  1  and  3--Provincial\nSmall Causes Court Act--S. 17(1)--Held, to be binding  order\nof   the   court  disposing  of\t suit  must  amount   to   a\ndecree--Held, further, in a controversy between the parties,\nonly  judgment\tcould give rise to decree--Where  point\t for\ndetermination  of  finding  not even stated,  it  is  not  a\njudgment within S.2(9).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\tclaimed\t to have let  out  the\tproperty  in\ndispute\t as  owner in 1966.  In 1974, he filed\ta  suit\t for\neviction of the tenant Habib and the sub-tenant Banda, first\nrespondent in this case.  This suit was decreed against both\nHabib  and  Banda.  With the  respondent's  application\t for\nsetting\t aside\tthe  eviction  decree,\tand  thereafter\t his\nrevision   petition  being  dismissed,\taccording   lo\t the\nappellant   the\t eviction  decree  against  Habib  and\t the\nrespondent became final on that date.\nHowever,  Banda filed the present suit on the basis  of\t his\ntide as owner of the property and claimed two reliefs : that\nthe  eviction  decree was a nullity, and for  an  injunction\nthat the present appellant be restrained from  dispossessing\nhim from the property.\t'The Trial Court dismissed the\tsuit\nOn  appeal the Civil Judge, District  Mazaffarnagar  decreed\nthe  suit  A second appeal by the present appellant  to\t the\nHigh Court was dismissed.\n199\nIn  the\t Supreme  Court, the appellant\tcontended  that\t the\ndecree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction could not\nbe  declared as not binding on a person who was a  party  to\nthe suit; and the view that the judgment of the Small Causes\nCourt  did not operate as res judicata between\tthe  parties\nbecause the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to decide\ntitle to the suit property, is erroneous in law.\nDismissing the appeal, this Court,\nHELD  : 1. The bar of the res judicata is not applicable  to\nthe  determination of the issue with regard to the title  to\nthe property in the present suit (p.9) [204E]\nTo  operate as res judicata the first finding must be on  an\nissue which has been directly and substantially in issue  in\nthe former suit.  If the finding given is Incidentally while\ndetermining   another\tissue\twhich\twas   directly\t and\nsubstantially in issue, such finding cannot be said to be on\nan  issue which was directly and substantially in  issue  in\nthe former suit.(p.10) [205C]\nGangabai  w\/o  <a href=\"\/doc\/1161744\/\">Rambilas Gilda v.  Chhabubai<\/a>  w\/o  Pukharajji\nGandhi, [1982] 1 SCR 1176, followed.\nThe  so-called decision of the Small Causes Court  does\t not\nrefer to the present respondent or to the written  statement\nriled by him where he had contended that he was the owner of\nthe property and the suit was decreed ex parte. [205D]\nNot  only has the Small Causes Court not given any  finding,\nit has not even referred to the said issue in its so  called\ndecision. (pp.8 and 11) [205D]\n2.In  order  to\t be  binding,  the  order  of  the  court\ndisposing  of  the  suit  must\tamount\tto  a  decree.\t The\ndefinitions of decree, order and judgment given in the\tCode\nshow that decree or order as the case may be, can come\tinto\nexistence  only if there is an adjudication on the  relevant\nissues,\t which\tconclusively determines the  rights  of\t the\nparties. (pp.11 and 12)\n[205D, 206A]\n'Points\t  for  determination\"  in  rule\t 4(1)\tare   issues\ncontemplated  by  Rules 1 and 3 of Order XIV  of  the  Code.\nSince  the matters were in controversy between the  parties,\nit  is\tonly  a judgment which could have given\t rise  to  a\ndecree.\t The decision of the Small Causes Court which has\n200\nnot stated the points for determination and given a  finding\nthereon\t is  not a judgment with S.2(9)\t of  the  CPC.(p.13)\n[206G-H]\n3.Under S.17(1) of the Provincial Small Causes Court  Act\nalso  it was obligatory for the Small Causes Court to  state\nthe  points  for  determination\t and  give  its\t finding  or\ndecision on each of the said points.(p.14) [207B]\n4.The  decision of the Small Causes Court is non  est  as\nfar as the respondent is concerned.(p.14) [207C]\nMohammed  Fasi\tv.  Abdul Qyayum, AIR  1978  Allahabad\t470;\nAlimuddin  v.  Mohammed Ishak, AIR 1974 Rajasthan  170;\t Ata\nMohammed  v. Ghera, AIR 196 H.P. 17; Nongthombam Mani  Singh\nv. Puyam Chand Mohan Singh, AIR 1959 Manipur 14; Labhu\tRarn\nv. Mool Chand AIR 1921 Lahore 91; Ganga Prasad v. Nandu\t Ram\nAIR  1916  Patna 75; Smt.  Qaisari Begum v. Munney  &amp;  Anr.,\n(1981)\t1  All India Rent Control Journal  549\tand  <a href=\"\/doc\/1636196\/\">Richpal\nSingh &amp; Ors. v. Dalip,<\/a> [1987] 4 SCC 410, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1993.<br \/>\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.1988 of the Allahabad<br \/>\nHigh Court in Second Appeal No. 1116 of 1986.<br \/>\nShanti Bhushan and Vijay K. Jain for the Appellant.<br \/>\nP.P. Rao and Shakil Ahmed for the Respondents.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nSAWANT, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The  appellant  claimed  to  be  the\towner  of  &#8216;Gher&#8217;<br \/>\n(property  in dispute) in the town of Shameili and  in\tthat<br \/>\ncapacity,  according to him, he had let out the property  to<br \/>\none  Habib  as long ago as in 1966.  He had filed  suit\t No.<br \/>\n591\/66\tagainst Habib for recovery of rent and the suit\t was<br \/>\ndecreed.   According  to  the appellant,  Habib\t sublet\t the<br \/>\nproperty to one Banda.\tIn 1974, the appellant filed a\tsuit<br \/>\nfor  eviction of both Habib and the subtenant Banda  in\t the<br \/>\nCourt  of Small Causes.\t This suit was decreed against\tboth<br \/>\nHabib and Banda.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter,  Banda, filed an application for  setting  aside<br \/>\nthe said<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">201<\/span><br \/>\ndecree.\t His application was dismissed.\t The revision  filed<br \/>\nby  him\t before\t the  Additional  District  Judge  was\talso<br \/>\ndismissed  on 26th September, 1977.  Thus, according to\t the<br \/>\nappellant, the eviction decree against both Habib and  Banda<br \/>\nbecame final on that date.\n<\/p>\n<p>However,  Banda filed the present suit on the basis  of\t his<br \/>\ntitle  as the owner of the property which has given rise  to<br \/>\nthe  present appeal.  In the suit, he claimed  two  reliefs,<br \/>\nviz.,  that the decree passed by the Small Causes  Court  in<br \/>\nSuit No. 45\/1974 was nullity, and an injunction\t restraining<br \/>\nthe  defendant\tin  the suit, namely,  Rameshwar  Dayal\t the<br \/>\npresent\t appellant, from dispossessing him of the  property.<br \/>\nThe  Trial  Court  dismissed the suit on 7th  May,  1979  by<br \/>\nrecording  a finding that plaintiff Banda was not the  owner<br \/>\nbut  it was the appellant before us, viz.   Rameshwar  Dayal<br \/>\nwho was its owner.  In support of its conclusion, the  Trial<br \/>\nCourt  relied on a registered rent deed dated 7th  December,<br \/>\n1956  under  which  the present appellant had  let  out\t the<br \/>\nproperty in dispute to some other tenant, earlier.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The judgment of the Trial Court was set aside in appeal<br \/>\nby  the Civil Judge, District Muzaffarnagar by his  decision<br \/>\ndated 13th December, 1985 the effect of which was to  decree<br \/>\nthe  suit filed by the respondent Banda.  The second  appeal<br \/>\nfiled  by the appellant was dismissed by the High  Court  by<br \/>\nthe impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.Two  contentions were raised before us by  Shri  Shanti<br \/>\nBhushan,  the learned counsel appearing for  the  appellant.<br \/>\nThe first was that the decree passed by a court of competent<br \/>\njurisdiction  could  not  be declared as not  binding  on  a<br \/>\nperson\twho  was  a party to the suit, and  the\t second\t was<br \/>\nthat,the  view taken by the lower appellate court  that\t the<br \/>\njudgment  of the Small Causes Court did not operate  as\t res<br \/>\njudicata between the parties because the Small Causes  Court<br \/>\nhad  no\t jurisdiction  to  decide  the\ttitle  to  the\tsuit<br \/>\nproperty, is erroneous in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.In  support  of his contentions,  Shri  Shanti  Bhushan<br \/>\nrelied\tupon  Mohammed\tFasi  v.  Abdul\t Qyayum,  AIR\t1978<br \/>\nAllahabad  470;\t Alimuddin  v.\tMohammed  Ishak,  AIR\t1974<br \/>\nRajasthan  170;\t Ata Mohammad v. Ghera, AIR  1962  H.P.\t 17;<br \/>\nNongthombam Mani Singh v. Puyam Chand Mohan Singh, AIR\t1959<br \/>\nManipur\t 14;  Labhu Ram v. Mool Chand, AIR 1921\t Lahore\t 91;<br \/>\nGanga  Prasad  v.  Nandu Ram, AIR 1916\tPatna  75  and\tSmt.<br \/>\nQaisari\t Begum\tv. Munney &amp; Anr., (1981) 1  All\t India\tRent<br \/>\nControl\t Journal  549 which is a decision of  the  Allahabad<br \/>\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">202<\/span><\/p>\n<p>6.As against the aforesaid decisions, the learned counsel<br \/>\nShri  P.P. Rao appearing for the respondent has relied\tupon<br \/>\ntwo  decisions,\t viz.,\tGangabai  w\/o  Ram  Bilas  Gilda  v.<br \/>\nChhabubai  w\/o\tPukharajji  Gandhi, [1982] 1  SCR  1176\t and<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1636196\/\">Richpal Singh &amp; Ors. v. Dalip,<\/a> [1987] 4 SCC 410.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.In  order  to appreciate the rival contentions,  it  is<br \/>\nfirst  necessary to reproduce Section 23 of  the  Provincial<br \/>\nSmall  Causes  Court  Act (hereinafter referred\t to  as\t the<br \/>\n&#8216;Act&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;23.   Return  of Plants\tin  suits  involving<br \/>\n\t      questions\t  of  title.   (1)   Notwithstanding<br \/>\n\t      anything in the foregoing portion of this Act,<br \/>\n\t      when  the right of a plaintiff and the  relief<br \/>\n\t      claimed  by  him in a Court  of  Small  Causes<br \/>\n\t      depend  upon the proof or disproof of a  title<br \/>\n\t      to  immovable  property or other\ttitle  which<br \/>\n\t      such  a  Court cannot finally  determine,\t the<br \/>\n\t      Court  may  at any stage\tof  the\t proceedings<br \/>\n\t      return  the plaint to be presented to a  Court<br \/>\n\t      having jurisdiction to determine the title.<br \/>\n\t      (2)When a Court returns a plaint under sub-<br \/>\n\t      section\t(1),  it  shall\t comply\t  with\t the<br \/>\n\t      provisions of the second paragraph of  section<br \/>\n\t      57  of  the Code of Civil Procedure  and\tmake<br \/>\n\t      such  order with respect to costs as it  deems<br \/>\n\t      just, and the Court shall, for the purposes<br \/>\n\t      of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, be  deemed<br \/>\n\t      to  have been unable to entertain the suit  by<br \/>\n\t      reason of a cause of a nature like to that  of<br \/>\n\t      defect of jurisdiction.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.It is sought to be argued before us on the basis of the<br \/>\naforesaid   provisions\tof  Section  23,  that\tit  is\t not<br \/>\nobligatory  on the Small Causes Court to refer the issue  of<br \/>\ntitle  to immovable property to a Court having\tjurisdiction<br \/>\nto  determine such title.  The expression &#8216;The Court may  at<br \/>\nany  stage of the proceedings&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;  suggests<br \/>\nthat an option is given to the Small Causes Court to use its<br \/>\ndiscretion  whether  it would proceed to  decide  the  title<br \/>\nitself\t or   refer  the  question  to\tthe   Court   having<br \/>\njurisdiction to do so.\tAccording to us, in the facts of the<br \/>\npresent\t case, it is not necessary to go into that  question<br \/>\nsince  the  decision  of  the  Small  Causes  Court  nowhere<br \/>\nindicates that the Court had used. any such discretion, even<br \/>\nassuming that it is the discretion of the Court to refer  or<br \/>\nnot  the question, to the Court of  competent  jurisdiction.<br \/>\nThe  decision  which is contained in  two  paragraphs  only,<br \/>\nreads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">203<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;This  suit is for ejectment of the  defendant<br \/>\n\t      from  a Gher (House) as per details  given  at<br \/>\n\t      the  foot\t of the plaint as well\tas  for\t the<br \/>\n\t      recovery of Rs. 1756.50 towards rent at Rs. 50<br \/>\n\t      a month with effect from 7.6.1974 upto date of<br \/>\n\t      delivery of possession.  The defendant did not<br \/>\n\t      turn up to contest the suit on the date  fixed<br \/>\n\t      for  hearing.  Hence, the case  proceeded\t ex-<br \/>\n\t      parte  against him.  The plaintiff has  proved<br \/>\n\t      his case by adducing necessary evidence.<br \/>\n\t      The  suit is ex-parte decreed with  costs\t for<br \/>\n\t      the ejectment of the defendants from the\tsuit<br \/>\n\t      property\tas well as for the recovery  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n\t      1756.50\tas  prayed.   The  plaintiff   shall<br \/>\n\t      further  be entitled to recover mesne  profits<br \/>\n\t      with  effect  from  7.6.74 upto  the  date  of<br \/>\n\t      delivery of possession as permitted by law  at<br \/>\n\t      Rs. 50 a month on paying the requisite  court-<br \/>\n\t      fees on the execution side.&#8217;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>9.   In order to appreciate what the Small Causes Court\t has<br \/>\nand  has not done, it is necessary to remember that in\tthat<br \/>\nsuit the present appellant was the plaintiff and both  Habib<br \/>\nand the present respondent Banda were defendant Nos. 1 and 2<br \/>\nrespectively.\t It  is\t not  disputed\tthat   the   present<br \/>\nrespondent had filed his written statement, and had in terms<br \/>\ncontended that he was the owner of the property in  question<br \/>\nbeing  in  possession  of the same since  the  time  of\t his<br \/>\nancestors,  and\t he had not been living in the\tproperty  as<br \/>\nsubtenant.  However, the aforesaid so-called decision of the<br \/>\nSmall Causes Court does not refer to the present  respondent<br \/>\nor to the written statement filed by him and the plea  taken<br \/>\nby  him in the said written statement.\tIt only states\tthat<br \/>\n&#8220;the suit is for ejectment of the defendant (not defendants)<br \/>\nas  per the details given at the foot of the plaint as\twell<br \/>\nas  for the recovery of Rs. 175650 towards rent etc. etc  It<br \/>\nalso says that &#8220;the defendant (not defendants) did not\tturn<br \/>\nup  to\tcontest the suit hence the case\t proceeded  ex-parte<br \/>\nagainst him (not them).&#8221; Then it proceeds to state that\t the<br \/>\nplaintiff   has\t proved\t his  case  by\tadducing   necessary<br \/>\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the second paragraph, the decision says that &#8220;the suit is<br \/>\nex-parte  decreed  with\t costs\tfor  the  ejectment  of\t the<br \/>\ndefendants from the suit property&#8230;..&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  It\t is, therefore, obvious that the Small Causes  Court<br \/>\nproceeded to dispose of the suit as if what mattered in\t the<br \/>\nsuit  was  only\t the presence or absence  of  the  defendant<br \/>\nHabib.\tIt did not take any cognizance of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">204<\/span><br \/>\npresent respondent&#8217;s presence or absence, and of the written<br \/>\nstatement  filed  by him.  Had it taken\t cognizance  of\t the<br \/>\nwritten\t statement, it would have become obligatory  on\t its<br \/>\npart  to  set  down the points for  determination.   Had  it<br \/>\nfurther\t itself decided to proceed with adjudication of\t the<br \/>\ntitle  instead\tof referring it to the\tCourt  of  competent<br \/>\njurisdiction, it could have done so after stating the points<br \/>\nfor determination.  What is more, the Court had to give\t its<br \/>\ndecision on the point.\tThe Small Causes Court did  neither.<br \/>\nIn  fact, as is clear from the so-called decision the  whole<br \/>\nof  which is reproduced above, there is no reference to\t the<br \/>\nwritten\t statement or to the question of title to  the\tsuit<br \/>\nproperty  raised,  therein nor is there a  decision  on\t the<br \/>\npoint even remotely, not to say incidentally.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  In the circumstances, the controversy raised before  us<br \/>\nas to whether the Small Causes Court is under an  obligation<br \/>\nor  not to refer the issue with regard to the title  to\t the<br \/>\nproperty  to a Court of competent jurisdiction\tand  whether<br \/>\nthe  bar  of res judicata would apply to  the  present\tsuit<br \/>\nbrought\t to  establish\ttitle to  the  property,  is  purely<br \/>\nacademic.  It would be a travesty of justice to hold that by<br \/>\nthe above order the Small Causes Court had even incidentally<br \/>\ndecided\t the issue with regard to the title which  fell\t for<br \/>\ndetermination  directly and substantially in the  subsequent<br \/>\nsuit which has led to the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  We are, therefore, more than satisfied that the bar  of<br \/>\nres  judicata is not applicable to the determination of\t the<br \/>\nissue  with  regard  to the title to  the  property  in\t the<br \/>\npresent suit.  It is for these reasons that we do not  think<br \/>\nit  necessary  to discuss in detail the decisions  cited  on<br \/>\nboth  sides.   However, we may refer to a decision  of\tthis<br \/>\nCourt\tGangabai  w\/o  <a href=\"\/doc\/1161744\/\">Rambilas\t Gilda\tv.   Chhabubai<\/a>\t who<br \/>\nPukharajji  Gandhi  [1982] 1 SCR 1176, which  has  a  direct<br \/>\nbearing on the question as to when a finding on the question<br \/>\nof  title to immovable property rendered by a  Small  Causes<br \/>\nCourt  would  operate  as res  judicata.   After  discussing<br \/>\nvarious decisions on the point, this Court has held there as<br \/>\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;when  a\tfinding\t as to\ttitle  to  immovable<br \/>\n\t      property\tis  rendered  by a  Court  of  Small<br \/>\n\t      Causes res judicata cannot be pleaded as a bar<br \/>\n\t      in  a  subsequent regular civil suit  for\t the<br \/>\n\t      determination  or enforcement of any right  or<br \/>\n\t      interest\tin immovable property.\tIn order  to<br \/>\n\t      operate  as res judicata the finding  must  be<br \/>\n\t      one   disposing  of  a  matter  directly\t and<br \/>\n\t      substantially in issue in the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      205<\/span><br \/>\n\t      former  suit  and the issue should  have\tbeen<br \/>\n\t      heard and finally decided by the court  trying<br \/>\n\t      such suit.  A matter which is collaterally  or<br \/>\n\t      incidentally  in\tissue  for  the\t purpose  of<br \/>\n\t      deciding the matter which is directly in issue<br \/>\n\t      in the case cannot be made the basis of a plea<br \/>\n\t      of  res  judicata.  A question of title  in  a<br \/>\n\t      Small Cause suit can be regarded as incidental<br \/>\n\t      only to the substantial issue in the suit\t and<br \/>\n\t      cannot operate as res judicata in a subsequent<br \/>\n\t      suit  in\twhich  the  question  of  title\t  is<br \/>\n\t      directly raised.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This  is  a sufficient answer to the  contention  that\twhen<br \/>\nSmall  Causes Court incidentally determines the question  of<br \/>\ntitle,\tit operate as res judicata.  The contention  ignores<br \/>\nthat to operate as res judicata the first finding must be on<br \/>\nan issue which has been directly and substantially in  issue<br \/>\nin  the former suit.  If the finding is\t given\tincidentally<br \/>\nwhile  determining  another  issue which  was  directly\t and<br \/>\nsubstantially in issue, such finding cannot be said to be on<br \/>\nan  issue which was directly and substantially in  issue  in<br \/>\nthe  former  suit.  However, it is not necessary for  us  to<br \/>\ndiscuss\t this  point  at length since we have  come  to\t the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  not only the Small Causes  Court  has\t not<br \/>\ngiven any finding on the issue even incidentally, it has not<br \/>\neven referred to the said issue in its so-called decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.  The next question is whether the decision of the  Small<br \/>\nCauses\tCourt is binding on the respondent Banda.  In  order<br \/>\nto be binding, the order of the Court disposing of the\tsuit<br \/>\nmust  amount  to a decree.  Section 2 (2) of Code  of  Civil<br \/>\nProcedure (the &#8216;Code&#8217;) defines decree as follows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;(2)  &#8216;Decree&#8217; means the formal expression  of<br \/>\n\t      an  adjudication which, so far as regards\t the<br \/>\n\t      court  expressing it, conclusively  determines<br \/>\n\t      the right of the parties with regard to all or<br \/>\n\t      any of the matters in controversy in the\tsuit<br \/>\n\t      and    may    be\t either\t   preliminary\t  or<br \/>\n\t      final&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  definition\t of &#8216;Order&#8217; given in Section 2 (14)  of\t the<br \/>\nCode is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>(14) &#8220;Order&#8217; means the formal expression of any decision  of<br \/>\na Civil Court which is not a decree.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>However, neither the order nor the decree should be confused<br \/>\nwith judgment&#8217; which is defined by Section 2 (9) of the Code<br \/>\nas &#8220;the statement<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">206<\/span><br \/>\ngiven  by  the Judge of the grounds of a decree\t or  order&#8217;.<br \/>\nThe  definitions of decree, order and judgment given in\t the<br \/>\nCode show that decree or order as the case may be, can\tcome<br \/>\ninto  existence\t only  if there is an  adjudication  on\t the<br \/>\nrelevant issues, which conclusively determines the rights of<br \/>\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>   14.\t  We have already pointed out earlier that the Small<br \/>\nCauses Court has not even noticed the matters in controversy<br \/>\nbetween the appellant and the respondent, and  consequently,<br \/>\nthere  has  been  no adjudication or decision  on  the\tsaid<br \/>\nmatters.    There   is\tthus  no   &#8216;formal   expression\t  of<br \/>\nadjudication&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.   conclusively   determining\t the<br \/>\nrights\tof  the\t parties  with\tregard\tto&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.\t the<br \/>\nmatters in controversy in the suit&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>    15.\t  It  must  be remembered in  this  connection\tthat<br \/>\nRules 4 (1) and 5 of order XX of the Code are applicable  to<br \/>\nthe  judgments of the Small Causes Court.  The Rules are  as<br \/>\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;4.  Judgment  of Small Causes  Courts   (1)<br \/>\n\t      Judgments of a Court of Small Causes need\t not<br \/>\n\t      contain more than the points for determination<br \/>\n\t      and the decision thereon.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (2)   Judgments of other Courts Judgments\t of<br \/>\n\t      other courts shall contain a concise statement<br \/>\n\t      of the case, the points for determination, the<br \/>\n\t      decision\tthereon\t and the  reasons  for\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      decision.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;S. Court to state Its decision on each issue.<br \/>\n\t      In suits in which issues have been framed, the<br \/>\n\t      Court  shall  state its finding  or  decision,<br \/>\n\t      with the reasons therefore, upon each separate<br \/>\n\t      issue, unless the finding upon any one or more<br \/>\n\t      of the issue is sufficient for the decision of<br \/>\n\t      the suit.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       &#8216;Points\tfor determination&#8221; referred to in Rule\t4(1)<br \/>\nare  obviously nothing but &#8216;issues&#8221; contemplated by Rules  1<br \/>\nand 3 of Order XIV of the Code.\t The present decision of the<br \/>\nSmall Causes Court which has not even stated the points\t for<br \/>\ndetermination and given finding thereon, is obviously not  a<br \/>\njudgment  within the meaning of Section 2 (9) of  the  Code.<br \/>\nSince  the matters were in controversy between the  parties,<br \/>\nit  is\tonly  a judgment which could have given\t rise  to  a<br \/>\ndecree.\t  The so-called decision of the Small Causes  Court,<br \/>\ntherefore, does not amount to a decree within the me<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">207<\/span><br \/>\nof Section 2 (2) read with Section 2(9) and Rules 4(1) and 5<br \/>\nof Order XX of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.  It\t is not disputed that in view of the  provisions  of<br \/>\nSection 17 (1) of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, the<br \/>\nCode is applicable to Small Causes Court except where it  is<br \/>\notherwise  provided  either  by the Code or  the  said\tAct.<br \/>\nApart  from Rules 4 (1) and .5 of Order XX of the  Code,  on<br \/>\nthis  count  also, it was obligatory for  the  Small  Causes<br \/>\nCourt,\tin  the\t present  case,\t to  state  the\t points\t for<br \/>\ndetermination  and give its finding or decision on  each  of<br \/>\nthe  said points.  Hence the present decision of  the  Small<br \/>\nCauses\tcourt is not a judgment and a decree in the  eye  of<br \/>\nlaw  and is, therefore, non est as far as the respondent  is<br \/>\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.  In\t the  circumstances, the appeal\t is  dismissed\twith<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<pre>U.R.\t\t\t\tAppeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">208<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And &#8230; on 13 January, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (1) 198, 1993 SCC (1) 531 Author: P Sawant Bench: Sawant, P.B. PETITIONER: RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. RESPONDENT: BANDA (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS. AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/01\/1993 BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And ... on 13 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And ... on 13 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-03T21:50:50+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And &#8230; on 13 January, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-03T21:50:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993\"},\"wordCount\":2716,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993\",\"name\":\"Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And ... on 13 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-03T21:50:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And &#8230; on 13 January, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And ... on 13 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And ... on 13 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-03T21:50:50+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And &#8230; on 13 January, 1993","datePublished":"1993-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-03T21:50:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993"},"wordCount":2716,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993","name":"Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And ... on 13 January, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-03T21:50:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshwar-dayal-vs-banda-dead-through-his-lrs-and-on-13-january-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rameshwar Dayal vs Banda (Dead) Through His Lrs. And &#8230; on 13 January, 1993"}]},{"@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\/99004","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=99004"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99004\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}