{"id":118779,"date":"2009-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-11-21T22:00:58","modified_gmt":"2018-11-21T16:30:58","slug":"kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Kulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A No. 2512 of 2008(O&M)                                       ::1::\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                     C.M No.9731-C of 2009 and\n                                     R.S.A No. 2512 of 2008\n                                     Date of decision : September 02, 2009\n\n\nKulbir Singh,\n\n                                           ...... Appellant (s)\n\n                         v.\n\nNarinder Singh and others,\n                                           ...... Respondent(s)\n\n                               ***\n<\/pre>\n
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI<\/p>\n
                               ***<\/p>\n
Present :    Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with
\n             Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate
\n             for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
             Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with
\n             Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate
\n             for respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n
                               ***<\/p>\n
1.   Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
\n     judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2.   To be referred to the Reporters or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?\n<\/p>\n
                                ***<\/p>\n
AJAY TEWARI, J<\/p>\n
C.M.No.9731-C of 2009<\/p>\n
             For the reasons stated, C.M is allowed and the service of<\/p>\n
respondents No.2 to 4 is dispensed with for the purpose of motion hearing.<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.2512 of 2008<\/p>\n
             This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the<\/p>\n
Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for<\/p>\n
possession of three properties numbering 4, 5 and 6, even while dismissing
\n R.S.A No. 2512 of 2008(O&M)                                         ::2::\n<\/p>\n
his claim for mesne damages. For facility of reference, parties would be<\/p>\n
referred to by their original title.\n<\/p>\n
             The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff (respondent No.1)<\/p>\n
had purchased the aforesaid properties No.4 and 5, vide sale deed dated<\/p>\n
7.2.1969 from his sister and adjoining property No.6, vide sale deed dated<\/p>\n
28.5.1969. He constructed a house on property No.5 and, since he was an<\/p>\n
NRI, living in England, the said house was used by his mother for her<\/p>\n
residence. During the last few days of her life, the defendants started<\/p>\n
residing with her.       The mother of the plaintiff died in September 1988.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, since the defendants refused to vacate the property, the instant<\/p>\n
suit was filed as far back as 4.3.1989 for possession. The plea taken by the<\/p>\n
defendants was that the suit was barred by Order 23 Rule 1 read with Order<\/p>\n
2 Rule 2 of the CPC. The second plea taken was that in fact properties No.4<\/p>\n
and 5 though purchased in the name of the plaintiff, were purchased out of<\/p>\n
joint family funds.\n<\/p>\n
             As mentioned above, the suit having been decreed, one of the<\/p>\n
defendants has challenged the same and raised the following questions :-<\/p>\n
                      ” (i) Whether the instant suit is barred by Order 23 Rule<\/p>\n
                      1 CPC, especially in view of the conceded fact that<\/p>\n
                      previous suit (Ex.DW1\/1) was withdrawn by the<\/p>\n
                      plaintiff-respondent No.1 without any liberty from the<\/p>\n
                      Court to file a fresh suit ?<\/p>\n
                      (ii)    Whether the instant suit of the plaintiff-respondent<\/p>\n
                      No.1 is also barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC ?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (iii)   Whether the findings of the learned Courts below<\/p>\n
                      holding the plaintiff to be the owner of the suit property,
\n R.S.A No. 2512 of 2008(O&M)                                      ::3::\n<\/p>\n
                   can be sustained in the eyes of law, especially when the<\/p>\n
                   plaintiff himself doubts the factum of perfect and valid<\/p>\n
                   title of his vendor ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (iv)   Whether the entire evidence on the record has been<\/p>\n
                   misread and misconstrued by the learned Courts below?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (v)    Whether the findings of the learned Courts below<\/p>\n
                   on issue No.3A are inconsistent and contrary to the<\/p>\n
                   evidence available on the record ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (vi)   Whether proper issues have been framed by the<\/p>\n
                   learned Courts below for the effective disposal of the<\/p>\n
                   present controversy ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (vii) Whether the suit has been properly valued for the<\/p>\n
                   purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant<\/p>\n
has argued primarily questions No. (i) and (ii). It is his contention that prior<\/p>\n
to the filing of the present suit, the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent<\/p>\n
injunction restraining defendant No.1 from interfering in his alleged<\/p>\n
possession over properties No.4 and 6. However, the plaintiff withdrew<\/p>\n
that suit without permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action.<\/p>\n
Further developing his argument, learned counsel has stated that while<\/p>\n
appearing as a witness in the present suit in his examination-in-chief, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff admitted that the defendants had taken illegal possession of the<\/p>\n
property in dispute (including properties No.4 and 6).         He has further<\/p>\n
submitted that in the cross examination also, the plaintiff had categorically<\/p>\n
admitted at two places in the following terms :-<\/p>\n
                   “…….To my knowledge Kuldip Singh entered into
\n R.S.A No. 2512 of 2008(O&M)                                     ::4::\n<\/p>\n
                   possession of property in dispute in 1987 when I came to<\/p>\n
                   India. I came to India in May 1987…….. When I came to<\/p>\n
                   India in 1988 as mentioned above Kuldip Singh was<\/p>\n
                   living in the property in dispute……”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned counsel      further drew my attention to yet another<\/p>\n
sentence of the cross-examination wherein the plaintiff admitted that he had<\/p>\n
earlier filed a suit for injunction against defendant No.1 which had been<\/p>\n
withdrawn because of compromise. Based on these facts, the argument of<\/p>\n
learned counsel is that the plaintiff had admitted the possession of the<\/p>\n
defendants over the property in dispute at the time when he had filed the<\/p>\n
earlier suit and, thus, having not sought the relief of possession in that<\/p>\n
earlier suit, this suit would be barred qua his claim for possession over<\/p>\n
properties No.4 and 6. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair<\/p>\n
and others<\/a>, (2004)3 SCC 277. In the said case, a suit for possession (like<\/p>\n
the present one) was sought to be repelled on the ground that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
therein had earlier filed a suit `seeking a decree for declaration of right and<\/p>\n
title to the plaint schedule property and their possession. Though their title<\/p>\n
was upheld the prayer for injunction was rejected as possession was not<\/p>\n
found. Appeal against the judgment in question did not bring any relief.<\/p>\n
Subsequently, a suit to which the present dispute related was filed seeking<\/p>\n
recovery of possession with mesne profits’. Learned counsel has drawn my<\/p>\n
attention to para 8 of the said judgment, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
has held as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                   ” 8.   A mere look at the provisions shows that once the<\/p>\n
                   plaintiff comes to a court of law for getting any redress
\n R.S.A No. 2512 of 2008(O&M)                                     ::5::\n<\/p>\n
                 basing his case on an existing cause of action, he must<\/p>\n
                 include in his suit the whole claim pertaining to that<\/p>\n
                 cause of action. But if he gives up a part of the claim<\/p>\n
                 based on the said cause of action or omits to sue in<\/p>\n
                 connection with the same, then he cannot subsequently<\/p>\n
                 resurrect the said claim based on the same cause of<\/p>\n
                 action. So far as sub-rule (3) is concerned, before the<\/p>\n
                 second suit of the plaintiff can be held to be barred by the<\/p>\n
                 same, it must be shown that the second suit is based on<\/p>\n
                 the same cause of action on which the earlier suit was<\/p>\n
                 based and if the cause of action is the same in both the<\/p>\n
                 suits and if in the earlier suit the plaintiff had not sued for<\/p>\n
                 any of the reliefs available to it on the basis of that cause<\/p>\n
                 of action, the reliefs which it had failed to press into<\/p>\n
                 service in that suit cannot be subsequently prayed for<\/p>\n
                 except with the leave of the court. It must, therefore, be<\/p>\n
                 shown by the defendants for supporting their plea of bar<\/p>\n
                 of Order 2 Rule 2 sub-rule (3) that the second suit of the<\/p>\n
                 plaintiff filed is based on the same cause of action on<\/p>\n
                 which its earlier suit was based and that because it had<\/p>\n
                 not prayed for any relief and it had not obtained leave of<\/p>\n
                 the court in that connection, it cannot sue for that relief in<\/p>\n
                 the present second suit……”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has argued<\/p>\n
that the statements in evidence to which pointed attention has been drawn<\/p>\n
would not give rise to the irresistible conclusion that the plaintiff had
\n R.S.A No. 2512 of 2008(O&M)                                    ::6::\n<\/p>\n
admitted the possession of the defendants over properties No.4 and 6 at the<\/p>\n
time when he filed the original suit. The first statement only states that at<\/p>\n
the time when the statement was made, the defendants were in possession.<\/p>\n
The statements in the cross-examination are only to the effect that the<\/p>\n
defendants were staying in the property in dispute. There was no statement<\/p>\n
that the defendants had taken illegal possession after the death of the mother<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff in September 1988.\n<\/p>\n
            I find this to be a plausible explanation and, thus, hold that<\/p>\n
there was no admission by the plaintiff that the defendants were in exclusive<\/p>\n
possession at the time when the earlier suit was filed. Apart from that, in<\/p>\n
Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair’s case (supra), after discussing the provisions<\/p>\n
of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, the earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court, the interplay between the doctrine of res judicata and Order 2 Rule 2<\/p>\n
of the CPC, and discussing the effect of the expression `cause of action’ in<\/p>\n
this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :-<\/p>\n
                   ” 19. In Inacio Martins v. Narayan Hari Naik<\/a> an almost<\/p>\n
                   identical question arose. In that case, the plaintiff had<\/p>\n
                   prayed for protection of his possession by a prohibitory<\/p>\n
                   injunction. That prayer was refused. Subsequent suit<\/p>\n
                   was for recovery of possession. This Court held that in<\/p>\n
                   the former suit the only relief that the Court could have<\/p>\n
                   granted was in regard to the declaration sought for which<\/p>\n
                   the Court could not have granted in view of the<\/p>\n
                   provisions of the Specific Relief Act.      The cause of<\/p>\n
                   action for the first suit was based on the apprehension<\/p>\n
                   about likely forcible dispossession. The cause of action
\n R.S.A No. 2512 of 2008(O&M)                                  ::7::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 of the suit was not on the premise that he had, in fact,<\/p>\n
                 been illegally and forcefully dispossessed and needed the<\/p>\n
                 courts’ assistance for restoration of possession. In that<\/p>\n
                 background this Court held that subsequent suit was<\/p>\n
                 based on a distinct cause of action not found in or formed<\/p>\n
                 the subject-matter of the former suit. The ratio of the<\/p>\n
                 decision has full application to the facts of the present<\/p>\n
                 case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 20.     In Deva Ram case it was held that where the<\/p>\n
                 previous suit was for recovery of loan which was<\/p>\n
                 dismissed on the ground that the document on the basis<\/p>\n
                 of which the suit was filed was not a sale deed but<\/p>\n
                 agreement for sale, subsequent suit for recovery of<\/p>\n
                 possession on the basis of title was not hit by Order 2<\/p>\n
                 Rule 2 as the cause of action in the two suits were not<\/p>\n
                 identical or one and the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 21.     The Courts below were, therefore, justified in<\/p>\n
                 holding that Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code had no<\/p>\n
                 application to the facts of the case. Consequently, the<\/p>\n
                 decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs for recovery of<\/p>\n
                 possession shall stand affirmed and the appeal to that<\/p>\n
                 extent shall stand dismissed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           Thus, it would be seen that while in paragraph 8 of Kunjan<\/p>\n
Nair Sivaraman Nair’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court defined the<\/p>\n
jurisprudential parameters of the policy of Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, in<\/p>\n
actual implementation, in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 (supra), the Hon’ble
\n R.S.A No. 2512 of 2008(O&M)                                      ::8::\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Supreme Court rejected a plea based on Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC in a<\/p>\n
factual situation like the present one.\n<\/p>\n
              With regard to the plea in respect of properties No.4 and 5<\/p>\n
having been purchased out of joint family funds, questions No. (iii), (iv)<\/p>\n
and (v) would cover the said plea. It would be seen that these questions are<\/p>\n
pure questions of fact. No arguments have been addressed on questions No.<\/p>\n
(vi) and (vii).\n<\/p>\n
                  Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that since the<\/p>\n
defendants have now illegally usurped the property of the plaintiff for 20<\/p>\n
years, mesne profits should be awarded in his favour.<\/p>\n
              It cannot be denied that the defendants have remained in<\/p>\n
possession now for more than 20 years during the pendency of these<\/p>\n
proceedings. The three properties in dispute total about 1000 sq. yards with<\/p>\n
the house where the mother of the plaintiff and the defendants were staying.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the award of mesne profits<\/p>\n
of Rs.50,000\/- per year would be called for in respect of this house with its<\/p>\n
own grounds situated in Ludhiana. It has to be noticed that there is no<\/p>\n
evidence available in this regard.        However, even by the conservative<\/p>\n
standards, in my opinion, it is a fit case for awarding nominal mesne profits<\/p>\n
@ Rs.1,000\/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till the date of<\/p>\n
actual vacation.\n<\/p>\n
              Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000\/-.<\/p>\n
              As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending<\/p>\n
civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.<\/p>\n
                                           ( AJAY TEWARI            )\nSeptember         02, 2009.                     JUDGE\n`kk'\n R.S.A No. 2512 of 2008(O&M)   ::9::\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Kulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 2009 R.S.A No. 2512 of 2008(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No.9731-C of 2009 and R.S.A No. 2512 of 2008 Date of decision : September 02, 2009 Kulbir Singh, …… Appellant (s) v. Narinder Singh […]<\/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-118779","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 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\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-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=\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-21T16:30:58+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-21T16:30:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2074,\"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\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Kulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-21T16:30:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 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":"Kulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 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\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-21T16:30:58+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-21T16:30:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009"},"wordCount":2074,"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\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009","name":"Kulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-21T16:30:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kulbir-singh-vs-narinder-singh-and-others-on-2-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kulbir Singh vs Narinder Singh And Others on 2 September, 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\/118779","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=118779"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118779\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118779"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118779"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118779"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}