{"id":108763,"date":"2009-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009"},"modified":"2019-02-02T00:08:22","modified_gmt":"2019-02-01T18:38:22","slug":"baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Baj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Baj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 July, 2009<\/div>\n
RSA No. 4371 of 2006                                        1\n\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                            Date of decision: 23.7. 2009\n\n                            RSA No. 4371 of 2006\n\n\nBaj Singh                                         ......Appellant\n                        Versus\n\nKulbir Singh and others                              .......Respondents\n\n\n                            RSA No. 4372 of 2006\n\n\nBaj Singh                                         ......Appellant\n                        Versus\n\nKulbir Singh and others                              .......Respondents\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:    Mr. V.K.Jain, Sr. Advocate with\n            Mr.Rajeev Sheokand, Advocate\n            for the appellant.\n\n            Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with\n            Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate,\n            for the respondents.\n\n                 ****\n\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This order shall dispose of RSA Nos. 4371 and 4372 of<\/p>\n
2006 as these have arisen out of same suit\/counter claim.<\/p>\n
            Plaintiff Baj Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction<\/p>\n
inter alia restraining the defendants from interfering in the land in
\n RSA No. 4371 of 2006                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
dispute. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and counter claim of<\/p>\n
the defendants was allowed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Amritsar<\/p>\n
vide judgment and decree dated        26.10.1998. In appeal, the said<\/p>\n
judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge<\/p>\n
(Adhoc), Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 5.10.1996.<\/p>\n
Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
           Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate<\/p>\n
Court in para Nos. 1 to 4 of its judgment, are as under:-<\/p>\n
           “1.         The facts of the case briefly stated are that Baj<\/p>\n
           Singh, appellant\/plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction<\/p>\n
           for restraining the defendants from interfering in his<\/p>\n
           possession over the property in dispute.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                       It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is in<\/p>\n
           possession of the land in dispute measuring 15 K- 12 M.<\/p>\n
           detailed in the head note of the plaint and he is cultivating<\/p>\n
           the said land as prospective vendee under the agreement<\/p>\n
           to sell dated 12.8.1975 executed by the defendants and<\/p>\n
           their deceased mother Jatto @ Jind Kaur in his favour<\/p>\n
           followed by another agreement to sell dated 17.6.76<\/p>\n
           through which period was extended for execution of the<\/p>\n
           Sale Deed.      Sale Deed was to be executed by the<\/p>\n
           defendant after getting permission from the competent<\/p>\n
           authority under Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act,<\/p>\n
           1976.    The defendants have not been able to get
\n RSA No. 4371 of 2006                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
         permission    from   the   competent    authority,   as   per<\/p>\n
         agreement. Smt. Jatto had died and the defendants are<\/p>\n
         his legal representatives. The defendants are threatening<\/p>\n
         to take forcible possession of the land with the help of<\/p>\n
         their husband and relations. They tried to interfere in his<\/p>\n
         possession over the suit land. He asked the defendants<\/p>\n
         time and again not to take law in their own hands, but<\/p>\n
         they refused.    As such, he is entitled to permanent<\/p>\n
         injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in<\/p>\n
         his possession, forcibly on the land in dispute.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         2. The suit was contested by the defendants.         In their<\/p>\n
           written statement they took preliminary objections that<\/p>\n
           the suit is not maintainable. Plaintiff had not come to<\/p>\n
           Court with clean hands and has concealed facts. The<\/p>\n
           possession of the plaintiff is permissive and on behalf<\/p>\n
           of the owners and as such, he is not entitled to<\/p>\n
           injunction, plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the<\/p>\n
           suit, the suit is not maintainable in the present form, the<\/p>\n
           correct Khasra Nos. of the property have not been<\/p>\n
           mentioned and that entries in the revenue record are<\/p>\n
           wrong.      Regarding merits, it was stated that the<\/p>\n
           possession of the plaintiff is under agreement to sell<\/p>\n
           executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. It<\/p>\n
           was admitted that the plaintiff was in possession under
\n RSA No. 4371 of 2006                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
              agreement to sell.     The defendants pleaded that the<\/p>\n
              Sale Deed was to be executed after getting permission<\/p>\n
              from the competent authority and they actually applied<\/p>\n
              for the permission but permission was refused by the<\/p>\n
              competent authority and as such, Sale Deed could not<\/p>\n
              be executed as per agreement.           They have been<\/p>\n
              demanding possession from the plaintiff and he had<\/p>\n
              been promising to give the same.         The plaintiff in<\/p>\n
              November, 1994 refused to give possession.        It was<\/p>\n
              denied by the defendants that they have tried to take<\/p>\n
              forcibly possession of the property or they intended to<\/p>\n
              take forcible possession of the land.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3.            Defendants filed counter claim for recovery of<\/p>\n
              possession, pleading therein that they being owner of<\/p>\n
              the property in dispute and permission to execute the<\/p>\n
              Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff as per agreement<\/p>\n
              having been refused by the competent authority, they<\/p>\n
              are entitled to take possession of the property in<\/p>\n
              dispute from the plaintiffs. Possession of the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
              was permissive and was on their bahalf, and as such,<\/p>\n
              they are entitled to decree for possession of the<\/p>\n
              property in dispute.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         4.      In the replication filed by the plaintiff, allegations<\/p>\n
              made in the written statement were denied and those
\n RSA No. 4371 of 2006                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
                 made in the plaint were reiterated. In the replication, it<\/p>\n
                 was pleaded by the plaintiff that his possession has<\/p>\n
                 been adverse, hostile, uninterrupted for more than 12<\/p>\n
                 years, to the knowledge of the defendants and world at<\/p>\n
                 large and he has even become owner of the property<\/p>\n
                 through adverse possession. His possession not being<\/p>\n
                 permissible, he acquired title in the property in dispute.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were<\/p>\n
framed by the trial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
            “1.           Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of<\/p>\n
            permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2.            Whether the defendant is entitled to relief of<\/p>\n
            possession as claimed in the counter-claim? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3.            Whether the plaintiff No.1 have become owner<\/p>\n
            in possession of the suit land on the basis of adverse<\/p>\n
            possession? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            4.            Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi<\/p>\n
            to file the present suit? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           5.             Relief. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The following additional issues were also framed by the<\/p>\n
trial Court on 18.3.1997:-\n<\/p>\n
            4A            Whether the defendants are estopped by their<\/p>\n
            own act and conduct from filing the present counter<\/p>\n
            claim? OPP
\n RSA No. 4371 of 2006                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
           4B          Whether the     counter claim is within time?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           OPD<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the<\/p>\n
possession of the plaintiff was by way of adverse possession after<\/p>\n
the date for execution of the sale deed had lapsed. The plaintiff had<\/p>\n
been put in possession of the suit property on the basis of an<\/p>\n
agreement to sell executed between the parties.               However,<\/p>\n
permission was not granted to the defendants to sell the suit property<\/p>\n
by the competent authority and from the said date i.e. 20.7.1976, the<\/p>\n
possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was adverse to that<\/p>\n
of the defendants. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has<\/p>\n
placed reliance on Shiv Kumar and others v. Ajodhia Nath and<\/p>\n
others AIR 1972 J&K 125<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,<\/p>\n
has submitted that the plaintiff was required to state in the plaint<\/p>\n
itself that he was in possession of the suit property by way of adverse<\/p>\n
possession and how and when it became adverse. In the present<\/p>\n
case, no such averment was made by the plaintiff in the suit. It was<\/p>\n
only in the replication filed by the plaintiff to the written statement<\/p>\n
filed by the defendants, plaintiff had averred that he had become<\/p>\n
owner of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession. In<\/p>\n
support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on a<\/p>\n
decision of the Apex Court in Achal Reddy v. Ramakrishna Reddiar<\/p>\n
and others<\/a> (1990) 4 SCC 706, wherein it was held that adverse
\n RSA No. 4371 of 2006                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
possession implies that it commenced in wrong and is maintained<\/p>\n
against right.    When the commencement and continuance of<\/p>\n
possession is legal and proper, referable to a contract, it cannot be<\/p>\n
said to be adverse.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel has next placed reliance on a decision<\/p>\n
of the Apex Court in Dr.Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari<\/p>\n
Sharma<\/a> 1996 (1) RRR 387, wherein it was held that a person<\/p>\n
pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he<\/p>\n
is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly<\/p>\n
plead and establish all the facts necessary to establish his adverse<\/p>\n
possession.\n<\/p>\n
            After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the present appeals deserve to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
            The facts in this case are not in dispute. Admittedly, an<\/p>\n
agreement to sell with regard to property in dispute was executed by<\/p>\n
the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The said agreement to sell is<\/p>\n
Ex.P-1.   Sale deed was to be executed on or before 20.6.1976.<\/p>\n
Rs.2,000\/- were paid as earnest money by the plaintiff to the<\/p>\n
vendors. There was one recital in the agreement that the defendants<\/p>\n
would apply and get permission from the competent authority under<\/p>\n
the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Parties again<\/p>\n
entered into another agreement regarding the same land on<\/p>\n
17.6.1976 and the date for execution and registration of sale deed<\/p>\n
was extended to 15.9.78.         The plaintiff was handed over the
\n RSA No. 4371 of 2006                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of the suit property in terms of the agreement to sell.<\/p>\n
           In these circumstances, the possession of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was permissive as per the agreement. In order to prove that the<\/p>\n
possession of the plaintiff was adverse, there must be a specific<\/p>\n
pleading of dis-claiming title from a particular date, hostile assertion<\/p>\n
thereof and setting up of adverse possession from a particular date<\/p>\n
to the knowledge of true owner and his acquiescence for the long<\/p>\n
continuous uninterrupted period. A permissive possession at<\/p>\n
inception does not become adverse merely by passing of long time in<\/p>\n
the absence of requisite animus.       The burden is always on the<\/p>\n
person claiming adverse possession. A person whose possession<\/p>\n
can be referred to a lawful title will not be permitted to show that his<\/p>\n
possession was hostile to another’s titled. In the absence of specific<\/p>\n
pleading of all the necessary ingredients, plea of adverse possession<\/p>\n
has to fail. No presumption of fact can be drawn in favour of a<\/p>\n
person claiming adverse possession. There is no equity in favour of<\/p>\n
such person.\n<\/p>\n
           In the present case, the plaintiff had not pleaded adverse<\/p>\n
possession in the plaint. It was only in the replication that plea of<\/p>\n
adverse possession was taken. The plaintiff had got the possession<\/p>\n
of the suit property on the basis of an agreement to sell and<\/p>\n
continued to remain in possession although sale deed was not<\/p>\n
executed in his favour. At the most the possession of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
can be said to be permissive. Admittedly, the defendants are owners
\n RSA No. 4371 of 2006                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
of the suit property along with their mother.    Hence, the Courts<\/p>\n
below have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant and<\/p>\n
have rightly decreed the counter claim filed by the defendants<\/p>\n
seeking possession.\n<\/p>\n
           The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant fails to advance the case of the appellant as the appellant<\/p>\n
had failed to assert and establish that he had become owner by way<\/p>\n
of adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
           No substantial question of law arises in these regular<\/p>\n
second appeals.       Accordingly, the same are dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                             (SABINA)
\n                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n
July 23, 2009
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Baj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 July, 2009 RSA No. 4371 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 23.7. 2009 RSA No. 4371 of 2006 Baj Singh ……Appellant Versus Kulbir Singh and others …….Respondents RSA No. 4372 of 2006 Baj […]<\/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-108763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBaj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 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\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-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=\"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-01T18:38:22+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-01T18:38:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1731,\"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\\\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Baj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-01T18:38:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 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":"Baj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 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\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-01T18:38:22+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-01T18:38:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009"},"wordCount":1731,"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\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009","name":"Baj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-01T18:38:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baj-singh-vs-kulbir-singh-and-others-on-23-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baj Singh vs Kulbir Singh And Others on 23 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\/108763","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=108763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}