{"id":105139,"date":"2009-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-07T04:00:57","modified_gmt":"2016-11-06T22:30:57","slug":"shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No. 2610 of 2006                           1\n\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                         R.S.A.No. 2610 of 2006\n                         Date of decision: 31.7.2009\n\n\n\nShri Chand\n                                                         ......Appellant\n\n                         Versus\n\n\n\nMange Ram and others\n\n                                                       .......Respondents\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:     Mr. R.M.Singh,Advocate,\n             for the appellant.\n\n             Mr.Manoj Sood, Advocate,\n             for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.\n\n             Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate,\n             for respondent Nos. 4 to 7.\n\n                  ****\n\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             Plaintiff -Shri Chand filed a suit for permanent injunction,<\/p>\n
which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Faridabad vide<\/p>\n
judgment and decree dated          10.11.2003.       In appeal, the said<\/p>\n
judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge,<\/p>\n
Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.2006. Hence, the
\n R.S.A.No. 2610 of 2006                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
           Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate<\/p>\n
Court in para Nos. 2 to 5 of its judgment, are as under:-<\/p>\n
           “2.         That he is absolute owner in possession of a<\/p>\n
           plot measuring 268.9 sq.yards forming part of Rect\/Khsra<\/p>\n
           No.19\/19\/1 (3-13) (described in detail in para No.1 of the<\/p>\n
           plaint) which was purchased by him vide sale-deed<\/p>\n
           No.2008 dated 4.9.1986 and Sale Deed No.5686 dated<\/p>\n
           9.11.1990. He has constructed two rooms in the said plot<\/p>\n
           and planted two trees and also constructed khor etc. He<\/p>\n
           has only one rasta (passage) to his plot which is shown in<\/p>\n
           red colour in the site plan and is marked by letters A B F<\/p>\n
           G. However, the said plot is marked by letters C D E F<\/p>\n
           and is shown in blue colour. He was given 7′ wide and<\/p>\n
           27′.6″ in length rasta by the vendors and he also<\/p>\n
           purchased the rakba of rasta adjoining to the rasta of 7′<\/p>\n
           wide i.e. 1′ x 27′.6″ from the vendors. As such the rasta<\/p>\n
           shown in the enclosed site plan in red colour and marked<\/p>\n
           by letters A B F G is now 8′ x 27′.6”. This rasta leads to<\/p>\n
           the aforesaid plot of plaintiff and he is using the same<\/p>\n
           since the purchase without any interruption from any<\/p>\n
           person.   The defendants or any other person have no<\/p>\n
           concern with this rasta. However, the defendants being<\/p>\n
           strong headed persons are now bent upon to grab the
\n R.S.A.No. 2610 of 2006                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
         said rasta marked by letters A B F G by closing\/blocking<\/p>\n
         the     same      illegally and      have threatened         to      raise<\/p>\n
         construction thereon. They have also collected building<\/p>\n
         material for this purpose.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3.             Plaintiff further averred that there is no other<\/p>\n
              rasta for egress and ingress to his house and he has<\/p>\n
              an easementary right over it for proper use and<\/p>\n
              enjoyment of the same.           As such plaintiff sought a<\/p>\n
              decree of permanent injunction against the defendants.<\/p>\n
              A decree of mandatory injunction was also sought by<\/p>\n
              the plaintiff pleading that since defendants have<\/p>\n
              encroached      upon      the   rasta     in   question      during<\/p>\n
              pendency of the suit after vacation of stay orders,<\/p>\n
              therefore,    they   be    directed       to   remove     all    the<\/p>\n
              constructions and obstruction from the said rasta.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         4.             Defendants contested the suit.            In the joint<\/p>\n
              written statement filed by defendants no. 1 to 3, it is<\/p>\n
              pleaded that they are absolute owners in possession of<\/p>\n
              a plot measuring 212 sq. yards which is forming part of<\/p>\n
              Killa No.19\/19\/1 about 7 marlas situated within the<\/p>\n
              revenue estate of Mauja Garkhera Tehsil Ballabhgarh,<\/p>\n
              District Faridabad which was purchased by their father<\/p>\n
              Bhajni from Harbans vide registered sale deed No.2878<\/p>\n
              dated 10.6.1982 which is bounded in East by fields plot
\n R.S.A.No. 2610 of 2006                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
           of Brahm s\/o Hari Lal, West by house of Rajender and<\/p>\n
           plot of Shri Chand, North by 11′ wide rasta and South<\/p>\n
           by plot of Siri Chand son of Bhanwar Singh. The said<\/p>\n
           plot is marked by letters A B C D E F and is shown in<\/p>\n
           green colour in the enclosed site plain. They have also<\/p>\n
           constructed a Tin shed khors, Bitore-Bonga etc. and<\/p>\n
           building material is also lying on the suit property for<\/p>\n
           the purpose of further construction by them. There is<\/p>\n
           no rasta in the plot which is shown in green colour in<\/p>\n
           the enclosed plan and the said plot is marked by letters<\/p>\n
           AB C D E F.      Plaintiff has no right, title or interest<\/p>\n
           whatsoever with the rasta over the plot of defendants.<\/p>\n
           The defendants are absolute owner in possession of<\/p>\n
           the said plot which is shown by plaintiff in red colour in<\/p>\n
           his site plan marked by letters GHIJKL. It is denied that<\/p>\n
           plaintiff has only one rasta shown in red colour.<\/p>\n
           Defendants No.1 to 3 pleaded that there is a separate<\/p>\n
           rasta measuring 7′ wide which is adjacent to the plots<\/p>\n
           of plaintiff towards the Western side. It is denied that<\/p>\n
           plaintiff was given 7′ wide and 27′.6″ in length rasta by<\/p>\n
           the vendors or that plaintiff purchased the rakba of said<\/p>\n
           rasta from the vendors. It is pleaded that vendors have<\/p>\n
           no right to sell the property belonging to defendants as<\/p>\n
           there is no rasta over the suit property. There is a plot
\n R.S.A.No. 2610 of 2006                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
                 belonging to defendants and is in their use and<\/p>\n
                 occupation. Other material obligations of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
                 have also been denied with the prayer for the dismissal<\/p>\n
                 of the suit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            5.             Defendants No. 4 to 7 also filed their joint<\/p>\n
                 written statement with the preliminary objection that the<\/p>\n
                 suit is not maintainable against them because neither<\/p>\n
                 the amended plaint discloses any proper cause of<\/p>\n
                 action against them nor any relief has been sought<\/p>\n
                 against them.     Hence, they are unnecessary and<\/p>\n
                 improper parties in this case. On merits the site plan of<\/p>\n
                 the plaintiff has been disputed. However, it is admitted<\/p>\n
                 that on the West of the alleged suit property, there is<\/p>\n
                 house of Rajender and his brothers i.e. answering<\/p>\n
                 defendants and on the North there exists a house of<\/p>\n
                 Rajender etc. and rasta 27.6″x8″ which leads to the plot<\/p>\n
                 of plaintiff and next rasta 11′ wide and on the South<\/p>\n
                 there is land of Dharma.      Other material allegations<\/p>\n
                 have been denied by the defendants No. 4 to 7 and<\/p>\n
                 claimed compensatory costs under Section 35-A of<\/p>\n
                 CPC against the plaintiff.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were<\/p>\n
framed by the trial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
            “1.            Whether there is any rasta to the house of the
\n R.S.A.No. 2610 of 2006                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
           plaintiff as alleged and shown by letters A B F G in the<\/p>\n
           site plan? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           2.         Whether the plaintiff has a right of easement<\/p>\n
           of necessity, if so, to what effect? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           3.         Whether the suit is not maintainable in the<\/p>\n
           present form? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           4.         Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and<\/p>\n
           misjoinder of parties OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           5.         Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and<\/p>\n
           cause of action to file the present suit? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           6.         Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the<\/p>\n
           present suit? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           7.         Relief. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
           The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction<\/p>\n
restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession<\/p>\n
of the suit property\/passage marked A B F G in the site plan. The<\/p>\n
case of the plaintiff was that he was owner of the passage in dispute<\/p>\n
as the said passage was mentioned in the sale deed, vide which he<\/p>\n
had purchased the house owned by him. The passage in dispute led<\/p>\n
to the main road, which was 11′ wide.       The   defendants had no<\/p>\n
concern with the passage in dispute and could not block the same.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff claimed right of easement with regard to the passage in
\n R.S.A.No. 2610 of 2006                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
dispute.\n<\/p>\n
           The case of the defendants, on the other hand, is that no<\/p>\n
such passage existed at the spot. In fact, the plaintiff had a passage<\/p>\n
on the Western side of his house which led to the main road.<\/p>\n
           During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant has drawn my attention to the site plan Ex.P-3. A perusal<\/p>\n
of the same reveals that although the passage A B F G in dispute<\/p>\n
has been shown on the Northern side of the house of the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
which is bounded by house of Rajender and Data Ram leading to the<\/p>\n
main road, however, on the Western side, 7′ wide passage has<\/p>\n
been shown, which leads to the main road, which is 11′ wide.<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon<\/p>\n
site plan Ex.DW-5\/A. A perusal of the same reveals that there is a 7′<\/p>\n
wide passage on the Western side of the house of the plaintiff, which<\/p>\n
leads to the main road.\n<\/p>\n
           A perusal of both the site plans shows that there is a<\/p>\n
passage leading from the house of the plaintiff to the main road on<\/p>\n
the Western side and hence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has no<\/p>\n
passage to reach the main road.        Both the Courts below, after<\/p>\n
appreciating the evidence led by the parties have given a finding of<\/p>\n
fact that no passage in dispute A B F G exists at the spot, which was<\/p>\n
being used by the plaintiff.    The said finding of fact cannot be<\/p>\n
interfered with by this Court in appeal. Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant has failed to establish that plaintiff was the owner of the
\n R.S.A.No. 2610 of 2006                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
passage in dispute.     The Courts below rejected the report of the<\/p>\n
Local Commissioner on the ground that the same had been prepared<\/p>\n
without taking into account the revenue record or any sale deed. The<\/p>\n
plaintiff had also failed to establish that he had been using the<\/p>\n
passage in dispute for the last more than twenty years as he had<\/p>\n
purchased the suit property only in the year 1986 and 1990, whereas,<\/p>\n
the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2000.<\/p>\n
              In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
            No substantial question of law arises in this regular<\/p>\n
second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                  (SABINA)
\n                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
July 31, 2009
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Shri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 2009 R.S.A.No. 2610 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2610 of 2006 Date of decision: 31.7.2009 Shri Chand ……Appellant Versus Mange Ram and others …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.M.Singh,Advocate, for […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 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\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-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=\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-06T22:30:57+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-06T22:30:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1582,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-06T22:30:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 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":"Shri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 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\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-06T22:30:57+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-06T22:30:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009"},"wordCount":1582,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009","name":"Shri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-06T22:30:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-chand-vs-mange-ram-and-others-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Chand vs Mange Ram And Others on 31 July, 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\/105139","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=105139"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105139\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}