{"id":244261,"date":"2021-02-23T16:15:16","date_gmt":"2021-02-23T10:45:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=244261"},"modified":"2021-03-05T12:00:49","modified_gmt":"2021-03-05T06:30:49","slug":"right-of-succession","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/","title":{"rendered":"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Madhya Pradesh High Court:<\/strong> Rohit Arya, J., dismissed a revision petition which was filed after the dismissal of Petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.<\/p>\n

The respondent\/wife and three children were plaintiffs in the suit seeking relief that they were entitled to half share of the property managed by petitioner. Suit had been filed on the premise that marriage was solemnized between them 17 years ago, they were blessed with three children. Since October 2019 petitioner had ousted plaintiffs from the home and prior to that, he used to come home in a drunken state and picking up fights with his wife and also used to physically assault her. To add pain to the injury, he had also kept a lady with him by the name Pushpa and was living like husband and wife, gradually he started creating the third party right in the existing properties managed by him.<\/p>\n

In the aforesaid backdrop of factual matrix, wife and children (now respondents) had filed the suit alleging mishandling of the property and alienation thereof to their prejudice with the assertion that they were entitled for their share in the property. The petitioner had in turn filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC styling himself to be the exclusive owner of the properties allegedly self-acquired by him.<\/p>\n

The Trial Court had rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC opining that only plaint averments were to be seen for deciding such an application, it further had held that the claim of share in the properties or right of succession were not pure questions of law instead they were mixed question of law and fact. Unless parties lead evidence in support of their pleadings, said questions could not be answered.<\/p>\n

This Court while dismissing the revision held that the trial Court had applied correct principles of law while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and there was no illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 115 of CPC.[Rajesh Vishwakarma v. Sapna Vishwakarma, 2021 SCC OnLine MP 388<\/b><\/a>, decided on 19-02-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Rohit Arya, J., dismissed a revision petition which was filed after the dismissal of Petitioner’s application under Order <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[29785,31554,3590,45270,31620],"class_list":["post-244261","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-law","tag-order-7-rule-11-cpc","tag-property","tag-right-of-succession","tag-section-115-cpc"],"yoast_head":"\nMP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Right of Succession\" \/>\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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Right of Succession\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-02-23T10:45:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-05T06:30:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/MP-high-court1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/23\\\/right-of-succession\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/23\\\/right-of-succession\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-23T10:45:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-05T06:30:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/23\\\/right-of-succession\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":381,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"law\",\"Order 7 Rule 11 CPC\",\"property\",\"Right of Succession\",\"Section 115 CPC\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/23\\\/right-of-succession\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/23\\\/right-of-succession\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/23\\\/right-of-succession\\\/\",\"name\":\"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-23T10:45:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-05T06:30:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Right of Succession\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/23\\\/right-of-succession\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/23\\\/right-of-succession\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/02\\\/23\\\/right-of-succession\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC | SCC Times","description":"Right of Succession","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.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC","og_description":"Right of Succession","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-02-23T10:45:16+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-05T06:30:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/MP-high-court1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC","datePublished":"2021-02-23T10:45:16+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-05T06:30:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/"},"wordCount":381,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["law","Order 7 Rule 11 CPC","property","Right of Succession","Section 115 CPC"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/","name":"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-02-23T10:45:16+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-05T06:30:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Right of Succession","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/23\/right-of-succession\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"MP HC | Claim of share in the properties or right of succession are not pure questions of law instead they are mixed question of law and fact; Court dismisses revision warranting interference under S. 115 of CPC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":260477,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/21\/law-on-rejection-of-plaint\/","url_meta":{"origin":244261,"position":0},"title":"Law on Rejection of Plaint | Contents of plaint or Examining sufficiency of plaint? Del HC explains the bounden duty of Court","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 21, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Prateek Jalan, J., expressed that, For the purposes of an order under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the Court must come to the conclusion that the plaint is required to be rejected. Present petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for directing against\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":218167,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/17\/del-hc-discrepancy-of-not-filing-leave-to-defend-under-or-37-r-35-in-response-to-summary-suit-could-be-ignored-in-interest-of-justice\/","url_meta":{"origin":244261,"position":1},"title":"Del HC | Discrepancy of not filing “leave to defend” under Or. 37 R. 3(5) in response to summary suit could be ignored in interest of justice","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 17, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High court:\u00a0Vibhu Bhkaru, J. dismissed a revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC impugning an order passed by the Additional District Judge in the subject summary suit whereby the respondents were granted unconditional Leave to Defend. The respondents had defaulted in repaying the loan extended to them by the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":202952,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/01\/withdrawal-of-a-suit-can-be-allowed-under-order-xxiii-rule-3-of-cpc-if-the-defect-is-formal-in-nature-and-such-that-has-no-effect-on-merits-of-the-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":244261,"position":2},"title":"Withdrawal of a suit can be allowed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC if the defect is formal in nature and such that has no effect on merits of the case","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 1, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge bench comprising of Rashid Ali Dar, J. while dealing with a civil revision petition filed against the order of trial court allowing withdrawal of suit, upheld the trial court order on the finding that there were sufficient grounds for granting leave for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":218666,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/27\/mp-hc-plaint-filed-under-or-7-r-11-cpc-can-be-rejected-based-on-grounds-mentioned-in-rule-11-or-if-the-cause-of-action-has-not-been-disclosed\/","url_meta":{"origin":244261,"position":3},"title":"MP HC | Plaint filed under Or. 7 R. 11 CPC can be rejected based on grounds mentioned in Rule 11 or if the cause of action has not been disclosed","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: Prakash Shrivastava, J., dismissed the revision petition filed by the respondents under Section 115 CPC where they challenged the order of the Trial Court, whereby their application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. The respondents had filed the suit for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":213911,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/24\/ori-hc-order-21-rule-29-cpc-cannot-come-to-the-rescue-unless-sufficient-cause-is-shown-to-stay-the-execution-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":244261,"position":4},"title":"Ori HC | Order 21 Rule 29 CPC cannot come to the rescue unless sufficient cause is shown to stay the execution case","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: The Bench of A.K. Rath, J. dismissed the petition filed against the order which rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC to stay the further proceeding in an execution case till the disposal of another civil suit.\u00a0 The facts of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":225347,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/10\/mad-hc-non-service-of-copies-of-plaint-is-not-a-ground-for-converting-a-summary-suit-filed-under-or-37-cpc-into-a-regular-suit\/","url_meta":{"origin":244261,"position":5},"title":"Mad HC | Non-service of copies of plaint is not a ground for converting a summary suit filed under Or. 37 CPC into a regular suit","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 10, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court:\u00a0V. Bharathidasan, J., dismissed a revision petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant to convert the original summary suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 37 CPC into a regular suit was dismissed. The respondent had filed a suit\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244261","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=244261"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244261\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244261"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244261"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244261"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}