{"id":150839,"date":"2009-05-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2"},"modified":"2019-03-21T03:51:42","modified_gmt":"2019-03-20T22:21:42","slug":"smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 2009<\/div>\n
RSA No. 2853 of 2005(O&M)                     1\n\n      In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n                                ...\n\n\n                                       RSA No. 2853 of 2005(O&M)\n\n                                       Date of decision: May     ,2009\n\nSmt. Khazani daugher of Giani                                ..Appellant.\n\n                                  Versus\n\nSurja and another\n                                                            ..Respondents\n\nCoram:        Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg\n\nPresent:     Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate\n             for the appellant.\n             Mr.R.K. Gupta, Advocate\n             for the respondent No.1.\n                       ...\n\nRakesh Kumar Garg,J.\n<\/pre>\n
             This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgment and<\/p>\n
decree of the lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the defendant<\/p>\n
No.1 against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was accepted and suit of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff\/appellant and<\/p>\n
defendant\/respondent No.2 were recorded owners of 1\/14th share in the<\/p>\n
agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.363, Khatauni No.446, measuring 46<\/p>\n
Kanals 1 Marla situated in village Bhawar, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat. The<\/p>\n
defendant\/respondent No.1 Surja is the real brother of the plaintiff\/appellant and<\/p>\n
respondent\/defendant No.2 and on 20.9.97 he brought the appellant and<\/p>\n
respondent No.2 to Gohana and got their thumb impression on some papers<\/p>\n
with assurance that the land will be transferred in favour of all the three brothers<\/p>\n
namely, Deepa, Surja and Ramphal the real brothers of the appellant and<\/p>\n
respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 got executed sale deed No.1702 dated<\/p>\n
26.9.97. The same was registered in his favour and mutation No.11-A was also<\/p>\n
entered in the name of respondent No.1 Surja. The sale deed and the mutation<\/p>\n
sanctioned on the basis of it were challenged by way of suit for declaration and<\/p>\n
permanent injunction in the Court of Additional Civil Judge,(Senior Division),
\n RSA No. 2853 of 2005(O&M)                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
Gohana with a prayer that the sale deed and mutation were wrong, illegal, null<\/p>\n
and void and not binding on the right of the plaintiff\/appellant and<\/p>\n
defendant\/respondent No.2 on the grounds that the plaintiff and defendant No.2<\/p>\n
never executed and registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff that no<\/p>\n
possession of the land was ever delivered to the defendant\/respondent No.1 that<\/p>\n
no sale consideration was ever passed and the sale consideration shown to be<\/p>\n
paid to the appellant and respondent No.2 was false and fictitious that<\/p>\n
defendant\/respondent No.1 is the real brother of the plaintiff and defendant No.2<\/p>\n
and in case, there was any such transaction, then certainly the defendant No.1<\/p>\n
would have filed     the suit for declaration instead of getting the sale deed<\/p>\n
executed and registered and that sale deed is the result of fraud and<\/p>\n
misrepresentation and the defendant\/respondent No.1 has only obtained the<\/p>\n
signatures of the plaintiff\/appellant and defendant\/respondent No.2 merely on<\/p>\n
asking that same are for giving the security; that no notice regarding sanctioning<\/p>\n
of mutation was ever given to the plaintiff and defendant No.2 which was<\/p>\n
mandatory.\n<\/p>\n
             In the written statement, contesting defendant No.1 took the stand<\/p>\n
that plaintiff and defendant No.2 have sold their shares to him. The grounds on<\/p>\n
which the sale deed was assailed were stated to be wrong and denied. It was<\/p>\n
further replied that plaintiff and defendant No.2 appeared before Deed Writer<\/p>\n
and Sub Registrar having admitted the contents of the sale deed true and<\/p>\n
correct, mentioning that suit is liable to be dismissed on account of non-affixation<\/p>\n
of advolerum court fee, additional pleas were taken that simple suit for<\/p>\n
declaration without seeking possession is not maintainable; that plaintiff has no<\/p>\n
cause of action to file the suit; that plaintiff is estopped by her own act and<\/p>\n
conduct to file the suit and that she has not come to the court with clean hands.<\/p>\n
At the end a prayer has been made to dismiss the suit.\n<\/p>\n
             Defendant No. 2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated<\/p>\n
13.8.2002 as she failed to appear in the court.\n<\/p>\n
             Replication was filed refuting the contentions of the defendant No.1
\n RSA No. 2853 of 2005(O&M)                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
and re-affirming the assertions made in the plaint. From the pleadings of the<\/p>\n
parties, following issues were framed:-\n<\/p>\n
                  1.Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.2 are still owners of<\/p>\n
                  1\/14 share of agricultural land comprised in khewat No. 363,<\/p>\n
                  Khatoni No. 446, situated in village Bhawar and registered sale<\/p>\n
                  deed No. 170 dated 26.9.1977 of 1\/12 share and mutation<\/p>\n
                  No.11A sanctioned on the basis of it are illegal, null and void,<\/p>\n
                  not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and defendant No.2<\/p>\n
                  on the grounds mentioned in para 4 of the plaint? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  2. If issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, then whether<\/p>\n
                  plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction?OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  3. Whether the suit simpliciter of declaration without relief of<\/p>\n
                  possession is not maintainable? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present<\/p>\n
                  suit?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  5. Whether the suit is false and vexatious to the knowledge of<\/p>\n
                  the plaintiff ?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present susit<\/p>\n
                  by her own act and conduct ?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  7. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the<\/p>\n
                  present suit?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  8. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean<\/p>\n
                  hands?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  9. Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Both the parties led evidence. After hearing the arguments, the trial<\/p>\n
Court vide its judgment and decree dated 14.8.2004 decreed the suit holding<\/p>\n
that the sale deed and mutation in question were null and void and not binding<\/p>\n
upon the plaintiff-appellant.\n<\/p>\n
              The judgment and decree dated 14.8.2004 passed by the trial<\/p>\n
Court was assailed by defendant No.1\/respondent No.1 pleading that the trial
\n RSA No. 2853 of 2005(O&M)                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
Court had taken a wrong view that the sale deed in question was the result of<\/p>\n
misrepresentation as it was proved on record that both the parties had appeared<\/p>\n
before the Sub Registrar and had appended the thumb impression and their<\/p>\n
photographs were also taken. It was also pleaded that the suit for declaration<\/p>\n
simpliciter without seeking possession was not maintainable as the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
not in possession of the suit land and thus the judgment and decree of the trial<\/p>\n
was liable to be set aside. The lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment<\/p>\n
and decree dated 15.2.2005 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment<\/p>\n
and decree of the trial Court resulting into dismissal of the suit.<\/p>\n
              While allowing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court observed as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
             “The execution of the sale deed has been proved. The attesting<\/p>\n
             witness who is Lambardar of the village has stated that Khazani<\/p>\n
             and Omi had admitted that they had received the consideration. It is<\/p>\n
             not the case of the plaintiff that market value of the property was<\/p>\n
             more. The plaintiff had admitted that they had wanted to give their<\/p>\n
             property. The plaintiff had set up a plea of fraud but it has not been<\/p>\n
             established beyond all reasonable doubts. The fraud in a civil suit is<\/p>\n
             to be established like any other facts on the basis of preponderance<\/p>\n
             of evidence. The fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a<\/p>\n
             design to secure something from another. In this case the parties<\/p>\n
             were closely related. The sisters are married and had been living in<\/p>\n
             their matrimonial homes. They are not        “Parda Nashin” ladies. No<\/p>\n
             inference can be drawn in their favour in the circumstances of the<\/p>\n
             case. The plaintiff had failed to prove that any fraud had been<\/p>\n
             practiced, therefore, the sale could not have been set aside on<\/p>\n
             those grounds. The findings recorded by the lower Court on issue<\/p>\n
             No.1 is reversed. The plaintiff had brought a suit for declaration<\/p>\n
             simpliciter. They are not in possession of the property. The property<\/p>\n
             had been mutated in favour of Surja. His possession is being
\n RSA No. 2853 of 2005(O&M)                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
              recorded thereafter. A suit for mere declaration without seeking<\/p>\n
              possession was not maintainable and the findings recorded on the<\/p>\n
              issue by the lower Court has also to be set aside.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the lower<\/p>\n
Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal arguing that the<\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration of this<\/p>\n
Court:-\n<\/p>\n
               “i)Whether the impugned sale deed executed and registered in his<\/p>\n
               favour   by    the   respondent       No.1,   by   way   of   fraud   and<\/p>\n
               misrepresentation is null and void and cannot affect the rights of<\/p>\n
               the appellant and respondent No.2, especially when their intention<\/p>\n
               was to transfer the suit land in favour of all the three brothers ?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               ii) Whether the mutation got some fraud by the respondent No.1 in<\/p>\n
               his favour without giving any notice to the appellant and<\/p>\n
               respondent No.2, is legal and void ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               iii) Whether the sale deed executed without the sale consideration<\/p>\n
               is valid and legal and sustainable in the eyes of law ?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
vehemently argued that it was proved on the record that defendant No.1<\/p>\n
practiced misrepresentation and fraud at the time of execution of the sale deed<\/p>\n
in question and thus any agreement or contract like the sale deed in question,<\/p>\n
which is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation cannot be sustained in the eyes<\/p>\n
of law. It was further argued that in case the sale deed and mutation sanctioned<\/p>\n
on the basis of it are set aside, then status of the parties in the suit land will be of<\/p>\n
co-sharers and therefore, the suit for declaration simpliciter was maintainable<\/p>\n
and thus the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court is liable to be set<\/p>\n
aside.\n<\/p>\n
              On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has<\/p>\n
supported the findings of the lower Appellate Court and has argued that no<\/p>\n
substantial question of law arises in this appeal as on appreciation of evidence, a
\n RSA No. 2853 of 2005(O&M)                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
finding of fact has been recorded by the lower Appellate Court to the effect that<\/p>\n
the sale deed was proved and further that the plea of fraud set up by the plaintiff-<\/p>\n
appellant could not be established from the evidence on record and therefore,<\/p>\n
this appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
             I have heard learned counsel for the parties. While passing the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment and decree, the lower Appellate Court on appreciation of<\/p>\n
evidence has recorded a finding that the execution of the sale deed is proved<\/p>\n
from the testimony of attesting witness who is a Lambardar of the village and<\/p>\n
that the plea of fraud as set up by the plaintiff has not been established. The<\/p>\n
fraud in a Civil Suit is to be established like any other fact on the basis of<\/p>\n
preponderance of evidence. The fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a<\/p>\n
design to secure something from another, which is not proved in this case. In the<\/p>\n
case in hand, parties were closely related. It is not the pleaded case of the<\/p>\n
appellants that she and her sister are “Parda Nashin” ladies. Thus, no inference<\/p>\n
can be drawn in their favour in the circumstances of the case. Nothing could be<\/p>\n
pointed out from the evidence before this Court from which it can be proved that<\/p>\n
any fraud was practiced upon the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
             For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the contentions<\/p>\n
raised by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
             No other point was urged.\n<\/p>\n
             Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.<\/p>\n
             Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
May     , 2009                                (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)\n          nk                                          JUDGE\n RSA No. 2853 of 2005(O&M)   7<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Smt. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 2009 RSA No. 2853 of 2005(O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 2853 of 2005(O&M) Date of decision: May ,2009 Smt. Khazani daugher of Giani ..Appellant. Versus Surja and […]<\/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-150839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 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-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2\" \/>\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=\"2009-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-20T22:21:42+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\\\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-20T22:21:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":1833,\"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-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Smt. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-20T22:21:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 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. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 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-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-20T22:21:42+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\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-20T22:21:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2"},"wordCount":1833,"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-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2","name":"Smt. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-20T22:21:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-khazani-daugher-of-giani-vs-surja-and-another-on-30-may-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Khazani Daugher Of Giani vs Surja And Another on 30 May, 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\/150839","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=150839"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150839\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150839"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150839"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150839"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}