{"id":118015,"date":"2009-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-29T22:22:13","modified_gmt":"2016-07-29T16:52:13","slug":"smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 2009<\/div>\n
      R.S.A.No.1960 of 2006 (O&M)                           -1-\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                               R.S.A.No.1960 of 2006 (O&M)\n                               Date of Decision:August 27, 2009\n\n\nSmt. Yashoda Devi and another\n\n\n                                           ---Appellants\n\n\n                  versus\n\n\nSmt. Rattan Kaur and others\n\n\n                                           ---Respondents\n\nCoram:      HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n                ***\n<\/pre>\n
Present:    Mr. Arun Jain,SeniorAdvocate,\n            with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate,\n            for the appellants\n\n            None for the respondent.\n\n                  ***\n\nSABINA J.\n\n<\/pre>\n
            Plaintiffs- Yashoda Devi and Parmeshwari had filed a suit for<\/p>\n
declaration and permanent injunction. Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Hisar<\/p>\n
vide judgment and decree dated 28.9.2002 dismissed the suit of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 preferred<\/p>\n
appeals.   The appeal filed by Rattan Kaur-defendant No. 1 was partly<\/p>\n
accepted and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Hisar vide judgment and decree<\/p>\n
dated 16.12.2005. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs.
\n       R.S.A.No.1960 of 2006 (O&M)                               -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
            The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, in paras 3 to of its judgment read as under:-<\/p>\n
            “The material facts giving rise to the present appeals are that<\/p>\n
            suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and the<\/p>\n
            defendants are the joint owners in possession in equal share of<\/p>\n
            the land measuring 300 kanals 12 marlas i.e. 2\/3 share in the<\/p>\n
            total land 450 kanals 17 marlas comprised in khewat no. 61,<\/p>\n
            khatoni no. 83 situated at village Dabra, Tehsil & District,<\/p>\n
            Hisar as per jamabandi 1991-92 and that the decree dated<\/p>\n
            28.10.1971 passed by Sh. Kanwal Singh, Sub Judge, Hisar in<\/p>\n
            civil suit no. 339 of 1971 titled as Rattan Kaur vs. Ranjit Singh<\/a><\/p>\n
            was obtained by fraud collusion and undue influence, the<\/p>\n
            mutation no. 1020 sanctioned in pursuance thereof and the<\/p>\n
            mutation no. 1449 about the inheritance of Sh. Ranjit Singh and<\/p>\n
            other entries in the revenue record inconsistent and contrary to<\/p>\n
            the rights and share of the plaintiffs in the said land are null,<\/p>\n
            void and not binding upon them that all such entries in the<\/p>\n
            revenue record are liable to be rectified with consequential<\/p>\n
            relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1<\/p>\n
            from seeking partition on the basis of present wrong and<\/p>\n
            incorrect entries in the revenue record and also alienating the<\/p>\n
            land was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. It was<\/p>\n
            averred that defendant No. 1 by undue influence and fraud<\/p>\n
            obtained a decree dated 28.10.1971 passed by Sh.Kewal Singh,<\/p>\n
            Sub Judge, Hisar in civil suit no. 339 of 1971 and the said<\/p>\n
            decree is null, void inoperative and ineffective upon the
\n R.S.A.No.1960 of 2006 (O&M)                          -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
     plaintiffs and is liable to be set aside on the grounds that<\/p>\n
     defendant no. 1 had obtained the decree by playing fraud and<\/p>\n
     undue influence upon her father.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 It was averred that plaintiffs and performa<\/p>\n
     defendants came to know about the decree dated 28.10.71 and<\/p>\n
     the mutation of inheritance of late Shri Ranjit Singh, they<\/p>\n
     arranged the meeting of their close relatives to settle the<\/p>\n
     dispute, in the month of January, 1997. It was averred that Smt.<\/p>\n
     Rattan Kaur defendant No. 1 was also present and she admitted<\/p>\n
     the wrong and incorrect present entries in the revenue records<\/p>\n
     and she expressed her total ignorance about the decree and told<\/p>\n
     the relatives present that she never obtained the decree, she did<\/p>\n
     not sign the plaint, Vakalatnama nor she engaged any counsel<\/p>\n
     for obtaining the decree dated 28.10.71.         However, she<\/p>\n
     admitted that once in 1971 Sh. Ranjit Singh told him that he<\/p>\n
     had transferred 1\/3rd share in his land by way of collusive<\/p>\n
     decree in her name to save the land from the operation of<\/p>\n
     Haryana Land calling law and she never appeared in the court,<\/p>\n
     not she ever brought or arrange the jamabandi attached with the<\/p>\n
     suit in which the decree was passed and she never participated<\/p>\n
     in the decree and did not make any effort to get the land<\/p>\n
     transferred in her name.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 It was averred that the respectables of the family<\/p>\n
     after having been convinced with the defendant no. 1 advised<\/p>\n
     the plaintiffs and the defendants to get the necessary entries<\/p>\n
     rectified in the revenue record and also share the land equally
\n R.S.A.No.1960 of 2006 (O&M)                             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
     that was owned by Sh. Ranjit Singh at the time of his death.<\/p>\n
     Though Smt. Rattan Kaur was only entitled to 1\/35 share in the<\/p>\n
     land but with a view to maintain peace and harmony and<\/p>\n
     cordial relation between the parties to the suit all agreed to<\/p>\n
     share the land equally as aforesaid.           Smt. Rattan Kaur<\/p>\n
     acknowledged and accepted the family settlement in this<\/p>\n
     manner and agreed to share the land equally with his brothers,<\/p>\n
     sisters and mother. She promised to get the necessary entries<\/p>\n
     corrected accordingly in the revenue record.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  It was averred that mutation no. 1020 sanction on<\/p>\n
     the basis of decree and the consequent entries to this effect for<\/p>\n
     the revenue record and mutation no. 1499 about the inheritance<\/p>\n
     of Ranjit Singh are null and void and are liable to be set aside<\/p>\n
     and the parties to the suit are joint owners in possession in<\/p>\n
     equal shares of the suit property. It is also averred that the<\/p>\n
     cause of action accrued to the plaintiff in the month of January,<\/p>\n
     1997 when she come to know about the entries in mutation of<\/p>\n
     inheritance of their father. On the basis of aforesaid averments<\/p>\n
     it has been sought that the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed.<\/p>\n
     4            On notice, written statement has been filed by the<\/p>\n
     defendant no. 1, Smt. Rattan Kaur and raised several<\/p>\n
     preliminary objections. It was averred that the suit was not<\/p>\n
     maintainable and was time barred.        It was averred that the<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs had no cause of action and locus standi to file the<\/p>\n
     present suit. It was averred that suit was bad for mis joinder<\/p>\n
     and non joinder of necessary parties and suit was false.
\n       R.S.A.No.1960 of 2006 (O&M)                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        On merits all the averments made in the plaint<\/p>\n
           were denied. It was averred that the decree dated 28.10.1971 in<\/p>\n
           civil suit no. 339 of 1971 was passed on the basis of family<\/p>\n
           settlement between the parties with free consent and there was<\/p>\n
           no question of any fraud etc. as alleged by the plaintiffs. It was<\/p>\n
           averred that decree dated 28.10.1971 was very much in the<\/p>\n
           knowledge of plaintiffs and the performa defendants. It was<\/p>\n
           averred that father or defendant no. 1 had expired in 1987 and<\/p>\n
           defendant no. 1 also got share out of the land which her father<\/p>\n
           had retained and at that time the plaintiffs and performa<\/p>\n
           defendants did not raise any question in any manner.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                        It was averred that the defendant No. 1 had full<\/p>\n
           faith in defendant no. 3 in whose favour she had executed<\/p>\n
           general power of attorney of her total share and later had<\/p>\n
           withdrawn the same. It was accordingly submitted that the<\/p>\n
           decree dated 28.10.1971 and the mutation no. 1449 about the<\/p>\n
           inheritance of her father was legally justified. It was averred<\/p>\n
           that the fact of partition in 1997 as alleged by the plaintiffs was<\/p>\n
           also wrong. On the basis of aforesaid averments the dismissal<\/p>\n
           of the suit has been sought by the defendant no. 1. All the<\/p>\n
           remaining defendants were proceeded against ex-parte.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following<\/p>\n
issues:-\n<\/p>\n
           “(1)Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners in<\/p>\n
           possession in equal share of the land measuring 300K-12M<\/p>\n
           comprised in Khewat No. 61, khatuni No. 83? OPP
\n       R.S.A.No.1960 of 2006 (O&M)                              -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
             (2)Whether the decree dated 28.10.1971 passed by S. Kewal<\/p>\n
             Singh, Sub Judge, Hisar in the civil suit no. 339 of 1971 was<\/p>\n
             obtained by fraud, undue influences and therefore, liable to be<\/p>\n
             set aside? OPP<\/p>\n
             (3)Whether the mutation No. 1020 and mutation no. 1449 are<\/p>\n
             illegal null and void and not binding upon the rights of the<\/p>\n
             plaintiff? OPP<\/p>\n
             (4)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?<\/p>\n
             OPD<\/p>\n
             (5)Whether the suit is time barred? OPD<\/p>\n
             (6)Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct<\/p>\n
             from filing the present suit? OPD<\/p>\n
             (7)Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and no locus<\/p>\n
             standi to file the present suit? OPD<\/p>\n
             (8)Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean<\/p>\n
             hands? OPD<\/p>\n
             (9)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder and<\/p>\n
             mis joinder of necessary parties? OPD<\/p>\n
             (10)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false frivolous and liable<\/p>\n
             to be dismisses with costs u\/s 35A CPC? OPD<\/p>\n
             (11)Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
             Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and defendants were joint owners in possession in equal share of<\/p>\n
the suit land and the decree dated 28.10.1971 passed by Sub Judge, Hisar in
\n         R.S.A.No.1960 of 2006 (O&M)                          -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
civil Suit no. 339 of 1971 was a result of fraud, collusion and undue<\/p>\n
influence. The trial court held while deciding issue No. 2 that in fact, there<\/p>\n
was no dispute between the family members of Ranjit Singh in the year<\/p>\n
1971 which required them to arrive at a family settlement. A decree had<\/p>\n
been suffered by Ranjit Singh to save the land from the provisions of Land<\/p>\n
Ceiling Act which came into force. The land would have become surplus<\/p>\n
and would have gone to the State and in order to save his land, Ranjit Singh<\/p>\n
had suffered a decree in favour of defendant No.1-Rattan Kaur. It was<\/p>\n
further held that the decree, in question, required registration as defendant<\/p>\n
had acquired interest in the suit property by way of a decree. The suit of<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs was dismissed being time barred. The decree challenged by<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs was passed in the year 1971 whereas the suit was filed in the<\/p>\n
year 1997. Appeal filed by Rattan Kaur was partly allowed by learned<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was<\/p>\n
dismissed. Finding on issue No. 1 was modified to the extent that the land<\/p>\n
which was subject matter of mutation No. 1449(Ex. P-9) shall not be<\/p>\n
effected in any manner and the finding on issue No. 3 was modified to the<\/p>\n
effect that Mutation No. 1449 was valid and Mutation No. 1020 was illegal,<\/p>\n
null and void. Ranjit Singh died in the year 1987. Mutation No. 1449 (Ex.<\/p>\n
P-9) was sanctioned on 26.2.1998 in favour of legal heirs of Ranjit Singh<\/p>\n
including defendant No. 1 as per law. Hence, mutation No. 1020 (Ex. P-8)<\/p>\n
equalizing the share of defendant No. 1 was liable to be declared illegal,<\/p>\n
null and void as no family settlement in the year 1997 was borne out from<\/p>\n
the record.\n<\/p>\n
              In the present case, the decree, in question was passed in the<\/p>\n
1971.    It is not the case of the appellants that they were not in the
\n        R.S.A.No.1960 of 2006 (O&M)                               -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
knowledge of the decree. Rather the decree was passed with a view to save<\/p>\n
the land from being declared as surplus. However, the suit had been filed in<\/p>\n
the year 1997. In these circumstances, both the courts below have rightly<\/p>\n
held that the suit of the plaintiffs was time barred. The said finding of the<\/p>\n
trial court calls for no interference by this Court in this appeal.<\/p>\n
               No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     (SABINA)
\n                                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
August 27, 2009
\nPARAMJIT\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Smt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 2009 R.S.A.No.1960 of 2006 (O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.1960 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision:August 27, 2009 Smt. Yashoda Devi and another —Appellants versus Smt. Rattan Kaur and others —Respondents […]<\/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-118015","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 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\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-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=\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-29T16:52:13+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\\\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-29T16:52:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1837,\"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\\\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-29T16:52:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 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":"Smt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 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\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-29T16:52:13+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\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-29T16:52:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009"},"wordCount":1837,"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\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009","name":"Smt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-29T16:52:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-yashoda-devi-and-another-vs-smt-rattan-kaur-and-others-on-27-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Yashoda Devi And Another vs Smt. Rattan Kaur And Others on 27 August, 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\/118015","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=118015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}