{"id":111872,"date":"2008-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-04-13T06:37:25","modified_gmt":"2016-04-13T01:07:25","slug":"jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Jaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Jaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n              AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                   F.A.O. No. 779 of 1983\n                                   Date of Decision : November 26, 2008\n\n\nJaswant Ram and another\n                                                              .....Appellants\n                                  Versus\nTek Chand\n                                                             .....Respondent\n\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN\n\n\nPresent :   Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate\n            for the appellants.\n\n            None for the respondent.\n\n\nT.P.S. MANN, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            Application preferred by the appellants under Section 263 of<\/p>\n
the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’), with a<\/p>\n
prayer for the annulment and revocation of grant of letters of<\/p>\n
administration allowed to the respondent regarding the property of Bhola<\/p>\n
Ram was dismissed by learned District Judge, Karnal vide order dated<\/p>\n
September 02, 1983, which has now been challenged by them by filing the<\/p>\n
present appeal under Section 299 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            The case relates to the estate of Bhola Ram son of Tula Ram,<\/p>\n
who died on 17.4.1967 at Panipat. While filing a petition for grant of<\/p>\n
probate under Section 276 of the Act, Tek Chand-respondent claimed that<\/p>\n
before his death, Bhola Ram executed a Will on 17.3.1967 bequeathing
\n F.A.O. No. 779 of 1983                                                 -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
his property to him. Vide order dated 17.10.1977, the learned District<\/p>\n
Judge, Karnal held that the respondent could not apply for probate but<\/p>\n
could be granted letters of administration. Accordingly, the respondent<\/p>\n
filed a petition for the grant of letters of administration, which was<\/p>\n
accepted by the learned District Judge, Karnal on 15.4.1980. This led to<\/p>\n
filing of the application under Section 263 of the Act by the appellants for<\/p>\n
annulment and revocation of the said letters, inter alia, on the following<\/p>\n
grounds :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “(i)    that the letters of administration was obtained
\n                     by mis-statement and deliberate concealment
\n                     of relevant facts, in as much as Bhola Ram
\n                     had died leaving behind Smt. Kishni Bai, his
\n                     widow;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (ii)    that Bhola Ram had filed a suit against
\n                     Jaswant Ram, petitioner No. 1 in the court of
\n                     Sub Judge Ist Class, for the recovery of
\n                     certain amount;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (iii)   that after his death Smt. Kishni Bai, widow
\n                     of Bhola Ram, applied for being impleaded
\n                     as legal representative of the deceased.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (iv)    that in those proceedings Tek Chand had also
\n                     claimed to be the legal representative of
\n                     Bhola Ram deceased but a compromise was
\n                     arrived at in those proceedings;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (v)     that Smt. Kishni Bai, before her death, had
\n                     executed Will dated 14.8.1968, thereby
\n                     bequeathing all the property inherited by her
\n                     from Bhola Ram in favour of the present
\n                     applicant;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 F.A.O. No. 779 of 1983                                                  -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
             (vi)     that Tek Chand got his application for the
\n                      grant of succession certificate in respect of
\n                      the estate of Bhola Ram deceased pending in
\n                      the court of Senior Sub Judge, Karnal,
\n                      dismissed in default on 29.8.1972, as that
\n                      petition was contested by the present
\n                      petitioners on the basis of the Will made by
\n                      Smt. Kishni Bai in their favour.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (vii)    that Tek Chand had played fraud on the
\n                      petitioners as well as the court and obtained
\n                      the letters of administration by fraudulent
\n                      and illegal means; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (viii)   that Bhola Ram did not execute any Will and
\n                      that the Will put up by Tek Chand was
\n                      forged, fabricated and a made up document.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The respondent opposed the application by taking preliminary<\/p>\n
objections that the application as framed did not lie; the appellants had<\/p>\n
chosen a wrong forum; the appellants had no locus standi to file the<\/p>\n
application; the matter for grant of probate and letters of administration had<\/p>\n
continued for about four years and the appellants knew fully well about the<\/p>\n
same but never raised any objection; that for three years the respondent<\/p>\n
fought the case with the Estate Duty Department and the appellants had full<\/p>\n
knowledge of the same. It was also pleaded by the respondent that Bhola<\/p>\n
Ram in his Will, executed in his favour, had declared that he was a<\/p>\n
bachelor and had neither a wife nor child. The respondent denied that any<\/p>\n
compromise was arrived at with the appellants or Kishni Bai. In fact, Smt.<\/p>\n
Kishni Bai was an impostor. The Will said to have been executed by Smt.<\/p>\n
Kishni Bai in favour of the appellants was also denied. While filing the
\n F.A.O. No. 779 of 1983                                                  -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
written statement, the respondent also deposited the original letters of<\/p>\n
administration.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, five issues were<\/p>\n
initially framed. Later on, an application was filed by the respondent under<\/p>\n
Section 151 C.P.C. that if the letters of administration was revoked, the<\/p>\n
case reverted to the stage of original application and, therefore, the parties<\/p>\n
could lead evidence in support of their contentions. The said application<\/p>\n
was disposed of by the learned lower Court on 6.1.1983 with the<\/p>\n
observation that the evidence led by the parties was relevant only to decide<\/p>\n
as to whether the letters of administration earlier granted to the respondent<\/p>\n
was to be annulled by revocation. An application under Order XLI Rule 27<\/p>\n
C.P.C. was then filed on behalf of the appellants on the basis of which<\/p>\n
additional issue No.4-A allowed to be framed. Finally on 10.6.1983, the<\/p>\n
issues were re-cast. Those issues read as under :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             1.       Was Smt. Kishni Bai the lawfully wedded<\/p>\n
                      wife of Bhola Ram ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2.       Did she inherit his estate as full owner ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3.       Did she execute any valid will in favour of<\/p>\n
                      Jhangi Ram and Jaswant Rai as alleged ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             4.       Whether Bhola Ram executed a valid Will<\/p>\n
                      in favour of Tek Chand as alleged ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             5.       Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             It may not be out of place to mention here that before the issues
\n F.A.O. No. 779 of 1983                                                 -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
were re-cast, the appellant had already examined OW1 Som Parkash, Deed<\/p>\n
Writer of Will, Ex. O.1 dated 14.8.1968, OW2 Tej Bhan, Purohit, OW3<\/p>\n
Chattar Singh, Clerk, Food and Supplies Department, Panipat, OW4 Uttam<\/p>\n
Chand, an attesting witness of Will, OW5 Jhangi Ram, one of the<\/p>\n
appellants and OW6 Ved Parkash, Stenographer, who proved statements<\/p>\n
Ex.O.6 of Ram Gopal and Ex. O.7 of Kishni Bai. In reply, the respondent<\/p>\n
examined himself as RW1, Teja Singh as RW2, Kakian Wali as RW3,<\/p>\n
Devi Dass as RW4 and Ram Narain as RW5. In view of the joint statement<\/p>\n
made by learned counsel for the parties at the bar, evidence already<\/p>\n
recorded was to be read on the issues as re-cast.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               After going through the pleadings and the evidence led by the<\/p>\n
parties, learned trial Court held that the appellants themselves failed to<\/p>\n
establish that Smt. Kishni Bai was the legally wedded wife of Bhola Ram<\/p>\n
and, therefore, she did not inherit his estate. Even the Will Ex. O.1 said to<\/p>\n
have been executed on 14.8.1968 by her in favour of the appellants was<\/p>\n
found to be riddled with suspicious circumstances. On the other hand, it<\/p>\n
was held that Bhola Ram executed Will in favour of the respondent and,<\/p>\n
accordingly, it was directed that the letters of administration already<\/p>\n
granted to him be delivered back to him. Resultantly, the application filed<\/p>\n
by the appellants under Section 263 of the Act was dismissed with no order<\/p>\n
as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, as no one has<\/p>\n
appeared on behalf of the respondent and with his able assistance perused<\/p>\n
the impugned order and the evidence available on the file.
\n F.A.O. No. 779 of 1983                                                   -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
             The dispute in the appeal mainly centres around two issues,<\/p>\n
first one being the relationship of Smt. Kishni Bai as the wife of Bhola<\/p>\n
Ram while the other about Bhola Ram executing a valid Will in favour of<\/p>\n
Tek Chand. If the first issue is found to be correct, then in that situation it<\/p>\n
is required to be found out as to whether Smt. Kishni Bai inherited the<\/p>\n
estate of Bhola Ram as a full owner and whether she executed a Will in<\/p>\n
favour of Jhangi Ram and Jaswant Rai.\n<\/p>\n
             The objectors have relied upon the testimony of Tej Bhan<\/p>\n
OW2. According to him, Chadarandaz was performed by him between<\/p>\n
Kishni Bai and Bhola Ram in the year 1943-44. However, in his cross-<\/p>\n
examination Tej Bhan stated that there were no formal rites performed on<\/p>\n
the occasion. Though four or five persons were present but he could not<\/p>\n
name them. Jhangi Ram OW5 did not mention about the marriage between<\/p>\n
Kishani Bai and Bhola Ram as Chandarandaz but referred to the same as<\/p>\n
Karewa. When cross-examined, he stated that neither he nor any of his<\/p>\n
brothers was present at that time. Uttam Chand OW4 was another witness<\/p>\n
examined by the objectors so as to show that Kishni Bai was the legally<\/p>\n
wedded wife of Bhola Ram. However, in his testimony he stated that the<\/p>\n
Karewa of Kishni Bai did not take place in his presence. Apart from the<\/p>\n
aforementioned witnesses, the objectors relied upon two Ration Cards Exs.<\/p>\n
O.3 and O.4, but none of them was properly proved. Chattar Singh OW3<\/p>\n
could not say as to whether Ration Card Ex.O.3 had been issued by the<\/p>\n
Food and Supplies Department, Muzaffargarh and Ex. O.4 by the Food and<\/p>\n
Supplies Department, Panipat. Similarly, Post Card Ex. O.5 would not<\/p>\n
establish relationship of Kishni Bai with Bhola Ram, as Tek Chand, who
\n F.A.O. No. 779 of 1983                                                -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
was said to have written and sent the same, had claimed that he was an<\/p>\n
illiterate person. Entry Ex. O.9 did not indicate the identity of Bhola Ram<\/p>\n
and also of Kishni Bai and, therefore, was no conclusive proof of the<\/p>\n
relationship between them as that of husband and wife.         Under these<\/p>\n
circumstances, it is held that the objectors failed to establish that Kishni<\/p>\n
Bai was the lawfully wedded wife of Bhola Ram. Resultantly, she was not<\/p>\n
competent to inherit the estate of Bhola Ram.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            In Para 24 of the impugned judgment, learned District Judge,<\/p>\n
Karnal has detailed the various circumstances which show that the Will<\/p>\n
Ex. O.1 said to have been executed by Kishini Bai in favour of Jhangi Ram<\/p>\n
and Jaswant Rai was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. On the other<\/p>\n
hand, it has been found, for reasons mentioned in para 25 of the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment, that Bhola Ram executed Will Ex. R3 which had been scribed by<\/p>\n
Ram Narain RW5 and witnessed by Devi Dass RW4. At the time of<\/p>\n
execution of the Will, Bhola Ram was in a sound disposing mind. The<\/p>\n
testimonies of Ram Narain RW5 and Devi Dass RW4 were found to be<\/p>\n
corroborated by that of Tek Chand RW1. Mere fact that Ex. R3 was only a<\/p>\n
photocopy of the Will was no ground to hold that no such Will had been<\/p>\n
executed for the reason that the original Will was initially produced by Tek<\/p>\n
Chand in the Court but was lost and on l4.1.1982 said Tek Chand filed an<\/p>\n
application for permission to lead secondary evidence, which was allowed<\/p>\n
on 9.2.1982.    It is also a fact that Tek Chand had initially filed an<\/p>\n
application for obtaining a probate of the Will which was not allowed for<\/p>\n
the reason that only letters of administration could be granted. While those<\/p>\n
proceedings were pending, publication was effected but no one came
\n F.A.O. No. 779 of 1983                                                   -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
forward to challenge the Will dated 17.3.1967. Therefore, on the basis of<\/p>\n
the evidence it stands proved that Will had been executed by Bhola Ram in<\/p>\n
favour of Tek Chand and he was entitled to the grant of letters of<\/p>\n
administration.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the appeal,<\/p>\n
which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ( T.P.S. MANN )\nNovember 26, 2008                                              JUDGE\nsatish\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                  Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES \/ NO\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Jaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 779 of 1983 Date of Decision : November 26, 2008 Jaswant Ram and another …..Appellants Versus Tek Chand …..Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. […]<\/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-111872","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008 - 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\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-13T01:07:25+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-13T01:07:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1861,\"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\\\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Jaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-13T01:07:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Jaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008 - 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\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-13T01:07:25+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-13T01:07:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008"},"wordCount":1861,"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\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008","name":"Jaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-13T01:07:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaswant-ram-and-another-vs-tek-chand-on-26-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jaswant Ram And Another vs Tek Chand on 26 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/111872","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=111872"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111872\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111872"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111872"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}