{"id":108059,"date":"2009-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-03-17T07:57:48","modified_gmt":"2017-03-17T02:27:48","slug":"ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ram Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Ram Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 July, 2009<\/div>\n
R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 (O&M)                                    -1-\nin C.R. No.5165 of 2002\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND\n                 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 (O&M)\n                                in C.R. No.5165 of 2002\n                                Date of Decision: 13.07.2009\n\nRam Lal                                     .....Applicant\/Tenant\n\n                                   Versus\n\nPyare Lal                                   ....Respondent\/Landlord\n\nPresent: Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with\n         Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate\n         for the petitioner.\n\n            Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with\n            Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate and\n            Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate\n            for the respondent.\n\nCORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN\n\n1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the\n       judgment ? Yes\n2.     To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes\n3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?Yes\n                            -.-\nK. KANNAN J.(ORAL)\n\nC.M. No.15042-CII of 2009\n\n            Application allowed.\n\n            Facts<\/pre>\n
 of the case are taken on record.\n<\/p>\n
R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 in C.R. No.5165 of 2002<\/p>\n
1.          The application seeks for a review of the order passed by me<\/p>\n
on 28.04.2009. On that day, the revision petitioner was not present<\/p>\n
either in person or through counsel and the order came to be passed in<\/p>\n
the presence of learned counsel for the respondent. The review is<\/p>\n
sought for on the ground that the judgment was delivered in the<\/p>\n
absence of counsel and the order contains a prima facie error that<\/p>\n
requires to be corrected.\n<\/p>\n
 R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 (O&M)                               -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
\nin C.R. No.5165 of 2002<\/p>\n
2.        The intervention of this Court was sought in revision against<\/p>\n
the order passed by the Rent Controller directing eviction while<\/p>\n
disposing of an objection filed by the judgment debtor. Learned Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-tenant points out that the<\/p>\n
order of eviction was passed on 23.01.1991 as per the terms of<\/p>\n
compromise and the Court that passed an order on consent cannot<\/p>\n
expand its terms or substitute its own terms to what was agreed to<\/p>\n
between the parties. The terms are:\n<\/p>\n
                   “Statement of Sh. Ram Lal s\/o Sh. Budh Raj s\/o Sh.<\/p>\n
         Piara Lal, aged 60 years, respondent on S.A.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    I undertook to vacate the disputed shop admitting<\/p>\n
         the grounds of ejectment as correct.      I shall vacate the<\/p>\n
         disputed shop on 30.11.1991. I shall only vacate the disputed<\/p>\n
         shop in case the applicant makes a payment of Rs.1,00,000\/-<\/p>\n
         in five bi-monthly equal instalments of Rs.20,000\/- each by<\/p>\n
         depositing in the Court falling due on 31.03.1991,<\/p>\n
         31.05.1991, 31.07.1991, 30.09.1991 and 29.11.1991. In case<\/p>\n
         the applicant makes the payment in lump-sum, then I shall<\/p>\n
         vacate the disputed shop within 15 days of the deposit of the<\/p>\n
         amount. In case I fail to vacate the disputed shop by the<\/p>\n
         stipulated time, then the applicant can withdraw the amount<\/p>\n
         deposited by him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    “Statement of Sh. Piara Lal s\/o Jai Ram Dass s\/o<\/p>\n
         Sugru Ram, aged 53 years applicant on SA:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    I have heard the above statement of the respondent<\/p>\n
         and admit the same as correct. The ejectment petition be
\n R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 (O&M)                                -3-<\/span>
\nin C.R. No.5165 of 2002<\/p>\n
         decided accordingly.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.        The order passed by the Court ran thus:\n<\/p>\n
          “Respondent has made a statement admitting the grounds of<\/p>\n
          ejectment as correct undertaking to vacate the disputed shop<\/p>\n
          upto and for 31.11.1991, in case the applicant makes the<\/p>\n
          payment of Rs.1,00,000\/- (Rs. One Lac) in 5 bi-monthly<\/p>\n
          installments of Rs.20,000\/- each by depositing in the Court<\/p>\n
          on 31.03.1991, 31.05.1991, 31.07.1991, 30.09.1991 and<\/p>\n
          29.11.1991 respectively. In case the applicant makes the<\/p>\n
          payment in lumpsum, then the respondent shall vacate the<\/p>\n
          disputed shop within 15 days of the day of deposit failing<\/p>\n
          which the applicant can withdraw the amount deposited by<\/p>\n
          him. The above statement has been admitted as correct by<\/p>\n
          the applicant.   Accordingly, the respondent is ordered to<\/p>\n
          vacate the disputed shop. File be consigned to the record<\/p>\n
          room.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.        According to learned counsel, the tenant had no doubt agreed<\/p>\n
to vacate the premises if the amount of Rs.1 lac was paid either in five<\/p>\n
bi-monthly installments commencing from 31.03.1991 and ending with<\/p>\n
28.11.1991 or in lump sum. The compromise provided that he would<\/p>\n
vacate the premises within 15 days of deposit and if he refused to<\/p>\n
vacate the premises, the landlord was only entitled to take back the<\/p>\n
money which he had deposited. In other words, the construction which<\/p>\n
was put in the compromise was to the effect that offer to evict itself<\/p>\n
could be wholly dependent on his volition only whether he was<\/p>\n
vacating or not. If he was not vacating in spite of deposit, the only
\n R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 (O&M)                                    -4-<\/span>
\nin C.R. No.5165 of 2002<\/p>\n
remedy that the landlord could have was to take back the money in<\/p>\n
deposit.\n<\/p>\n
5.          It must be noticed that the compromise terms themselves are<\/p>\n
not too happily worded and while the Court will not normally substitute<\/p>\n
the terms of the compromise, it will at least make an inference to<\/p>\n
understand the terms in the manner that will fit in with normal canons<\/p>\n
of logic.    It will be impermissible to assign some meaning to a<\/p>\n
compromise that is either unworkable or that would reduce the terms of<\/p>\n
compromise ad absurdum. It should be noticed here that the<\/p>\n
compromise terms themselves do not read like a conditional one,<\/p>\n
stipulating that the amount was to be paid before a particular date and if<\/p>\n
that amount was not paid by that specified date, the landlord would not<\/p>\n
be entitled to the order of eviction. A harmonious construction of the<\/p>\n
terms and a logical inference to the words shall be only that the<\/p>\n
landlord could not have obtained eviction without payment of Rs.1 lac.<\/p>\n
It cannot be given a meaning that would make the deposit itself<\/p>\n
meaningless if the tenant chose not to evict and leaving the option to<\/p>\n
the landlord of merely withdrawing the money which he had deposited.<\/p>\n
The imprimatur that the Court gave by accepting the terms did not<\/p>\n
again treat the compromise terms as a conditional one. It did no more<\/p>\n
than saying that “accordingly, the respondent is ordered to vacate the<\/p>\n
disputed shop.” This expression “accordingly” must be understood as<\/p>\n
an expression that the Court directed eviction and both the parties were<\/p>\n
expected to perform the respective obligations namely of the landlord<\/p>\n
by a deposit of Rs.1 lac and of the tenant, a duty to vacate.<\/p>\n
6.          The landlord put the decree in execution nearly 7 \u00bd years
\n R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 (O&M)                                  -5-<\/span>
\nin C.R. No.5165 of 2002<\/p>\n
later but without either complying with the terms of deposit or offering<\/p>\n
to deposit. On the other hand, the landlord had stated that the condition<\/p>\n
for deposit itself was against public policy. When objection was taken<\/p>\n
by the tenant regarding the executability, the Executing Court passed an<\/p>\n
order directing eviction and by a contemporaneous order directed Rs.1<\/p>\n
lac to be paid within 15 days from the date of order. This amount was<\/p>\n
also deposited as directed by the Court. It is this order which was<\/p>\n
challenged in revision by the Judgment Debtor.\n<\/p>\n
7.        While passing an order on 28.04.2009, I had noticed an<\/p>\n
absurd situation that the terms of the compromise could be put to if the<\/p>\n
tenant were to say that if he chose not to vacate, the landlord himself<\/p>\n
did not have a power to execute the decree. I had also noticed the fact<\/p>\n
that the compromise terms did not contain any clause referring to the<\/p>\n
deposit period as constituting the essence of contract between the<\/p>\n
parties. To my mind, the compromise could be understood only as<\/p>\n
containing mutual obligations in the manner referred to above namely<\/p>\n
of the landlord’s right to obtain eviction on his liability to deposit Rs.1<\/p>\n
lac and the tenant’s duty to vacate with a right to withdraw the money.<\/p>\n
A compromise is invariably a climb down from the respective positions<\/p>\n
of contesting parties and operates on an elementary principle of “give<\/p>\n
and take”. It can never be “give and give” or “take and take”. If the<\/p>\n
tenant was to contend that he would either withdraw the money or<\/p>\n
choose not to withdraw and in which case the compromise term could<\/p>\n
be rendered meaningless will be impressing the character of the<\/p>\n
compromise to a meaningless gibberish.       The order, therefore, passed<\/p>\n
by the Executing Court directing the amount to be paid rejecting the
\n R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 (O&M)                                 -6-<\/span>
\nin C.R. No.5165 of 2002<\/p>\n
contention of the landlord that it was against the terms of public policy<\/p>\n
and making it conditional for execution of the decree perfectly<\/p>\n
accorded with logic, reason and law.\n<\/p>\n
8.        Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant-tenant<\/p>\n
relies on Gupta Steel Industries Vs. Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n
and another (1996) 11 SCC 678 that a Court cannot interfere with or<\/p>\n
modify the terms of compromise unless the parties agreed to the same.<\/p>\n
By directing eviction with a concomitant liability of a landlord to<\/p>\n
deposit Rs.1 lac is not according to me altering the terms of the<\/p>\n
compromise which the law interdicts.       On the other hand, it is an<\/p>\n
attempt to bring the best meaning to the compromise. He also refers me<\/p>\n
to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Santosh Kumar Ghosh Vs.<\/p>\n
Bholanath Ghosh and others 2001 AIHC 2492 that held where a<\/p>\n
compromise decree is for recovery of possession of land on payment of<\/p>\n
yearly installments and if the party failed to pay the installment within<\/p>\n
the stipulated time, he would not be entitled to execution of decree<\/p>\n
merely because he subsequently deposited the amount in Court. The<\/p>\n
Calcutta High Court again was dealing with the situation where the<\/p>\n
amounts were to be deposited and delivery was to be effected for<\/p>\n
extents in proportion to the deposits. The Court found that if the<\/p>\n
amount was not deposited within the time stipulated, the right itself<\/p>\n
could be lost. I may not be able to go as far as how the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Calcutta High Court understood the law laid down by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Prithvi Chand Ram Chand Sarlok Vs. S.Y. Shind<\/p>\n
AIR 1993 SC 1929. I have already stated that the decree itself did not<\/p>\n
stipulate the period of deposit as of the essence of contract. I have
\n R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 (O&M)                                 -7-<\/span>
\nin C.R. No.5165 of 2002<\/p>\n
given expression to the meaning of the compromise as a right of a<\/p>\n
decree-holder to obtain on payment of certain sums and the dates<\/p>\n
mentioned was without a specification as to the consequence of non-<\/p>\n
deposit. In K.C. Reddy Vs. Batcha Vasudeva Naidu 1999 AIHC 4540,<\/p>\n
the Andhra Pradesh High Court through a Single Bench dealt with a<\/p>\n
case of a money decree passed on a compromise and the defendant<\/p>\n
agreeing to part with the suit sum in satisfaction of the suit claim. The<\/p>\n
High Court dealt with the effect of non-payment of the amount within<\/p>\n
the time specified and the refusal of the Court to extend the time in<\/p>\n
such conditional decree. I have again pointed out above that if there<\/p>\n
was a conditional decree with the time as to deposit being a pre-<\/p>\n
condition, the Court’s power to extend the time is simply unavailable.<\/p>\n
The power to enlarge the time, which is available under Section 148 of<\/p>\n
the Civil Procedure Code is only to the period at the time of passing of<\/p>\n
the decree. After the decree, the law itself lays down Order 20 Rule 11<\/p>\n
(2) CPC that the Court will have no power to enlarge the time if the<\/p>\n
parties did not concede for the same. We are not confronted with the<\/p>\n
situation like what obtains in a conditional decree of payment within a<\/p>\n
particular period. There is no other clause in the compromise terms as<\/p>\n
to the effect of non-deposit within a particular time.        It cannot,<\/p>\n
therefore, be not understood as conditional for obtaining eviction<\/p>\n
before any particular date. The decision of the Kerala High Court in<\/p>\n
V.N. Sreedharan Vs. Bhaskaran AIR 1986 Kerala 49 was a decision<\/p>\n
where the Kerala High Court was actually casting a duty on Court to<\/p>\n
give effect to the terms of a compromise and it could never be taken to<\/p>\n
give rise to a particular meaning that makes it inexecutable. Far from
\n R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 (O&M)                                -8-<\/span>
\nin C.R. No.5165 of 2002<\/p>\n
supporting the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the tenant,<\/p>\n
the Kerala High Court was laying stress on the executability as being<\/p>\n
one of the main incidences of decree whether it is a compromise decree<\/p>\n
or not. By the interpretation that the learned Senior Counsel wants to<\/p>\n
give to the terms of the compromise, he reinforces the inexecutability<\/p>\n
of the decree as the governing criterion.       Salkia Businessmen’s<\/p>\n
Association and others Vs. Howrah Municipal Corporation and<\/p>\n
others AIR 2001 SC 2970 was a case where the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court held that the Court should strictly enforce the terms and viewing<\/p>\n
breach of terms of compromise as matter of mere contract between<\/p>\n
parties and disregarding it would have disastrous effect on rule of law.<\/p>\n
The Executing Court directed Rs.1 lac to be deposited by the decree-<\/p>\n
holder before he could obtain eviction, thereby enforcing the terms of<\/p>\n
the contract and refusing to the decree-holder a scope to commit a<\/p>\n
breach in the manner sought for by him by contending that the terms for<\/p>\n
deposit was against public policy. This decision again re-enforces the<\/p>\n
fundamental principle that the parties cannot stay away from the terms<\/p>\n
of a compromise and make it wholly inexecutable unless the<\/p>\n
inexecutability itself is to be a result of non-compliance of some of the<\/p>\n
terms.\n<\/p>\n
9.        The lengthy discussion that I have undertaken would falsify<\/p>\n
even the untenable condition that there is an error apparent on the face<\/p>\n
of record that makes a judgment susceptible for review, which error<\/p>\n
must be so patent as it would require no further forensic exercise for<\/p>\n
finding whether a legal reasoning is appropriate or not. I have still<\/p>\n
taken up this task only to quell an apprehension that the case came to
\n R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 (O&M)                               -9-<\/span>
\nin C.R. No.5165 of 2002<\/p>\n
be decided by the default of appearance of the revision petitioner by a<\/p>\n
lackadaisical approach. Nay, I have applied all the relevant points to<\/p>\n
gain my attention and delivered a judgment on due consideration.<\/p>\n
There is no scope for review and review application is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                 (K. KANNAN)
\n                                                   JUDGE
\nJuly 13, 2009
\nPankaj*\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Ram Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 July, 2009 R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 (O&M) -1- in C.R. No.5165 of 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.A. No.58-CII of 2009 (O&M) in C.R. No.5165 of 2002 Date of Decision: 13.07.2009 Ram Lal …..Applicant\/Tenant Versus Pyare […]<\/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-108059","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 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\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-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=\"2009-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-17T02:27:48+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-17T02:27:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2269,\"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\\\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Ram Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-17T02:27:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 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":"Ram Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 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\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-17T02:27:48+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-17T02:27:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009"},"wordCount":2269,"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\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009","name":"Ram Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-17T02:27:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-lal-vs-pyare-lal-on-13-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Lal vs Pyare Lal on 13 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\/108059","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=108059"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108059\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108059"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108059"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108059"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}