{"id":1603,"date":"2008-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-06-26T09:27:17","modified_gmt":"2016-06-26T03:57:17","slug":"dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Dharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Dharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008<\/div>\n
R.S.A. No. 3415 of 2007                                    -1-\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                       C.M. No. 9493-C of 2007 and\n                                       R.S.A. No. 3415 of 2007\n\n                                       Date of Decision: 22.9.2008\n\n\nDharam Singh                                               ...Appellant.\n\n             Versus\n\nGurdev Singh and others                                    ...Respondents.\n\n\n\nCORAM:-      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.\n\n\n\nPRESENT: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.\n\n\nAJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             Being unsuccessful in both the courts below, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has filed the present regular second appeal in this Court challenging the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree dated 1.2.2007 passed by the first appellate court<\/p>\n
affirming that of the trial court dated 25.8.2005 whereby the suit of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff for declaration was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             Adumbrated the facts necessary for the disposal of this<\/p>\n
appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that<\/p>\n
the compromise dated 29.5.1995 as well as the the judgment and<\/p>\n
decree dated 9.6.1995 passed in Civil Suit No. 545 of 9.12.1993 titled<\/p>\n
as Sukhminder Singh etc. V. Hukam Singh etc. on the basis of said<\/p>\n
compromise, being result of fraud played upon the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
defendants No.10 and 11, were not binding upon them and as a<\/p>\n
consequential relief a decree for permanent injunction restraining
\n R.S.A. No. 3415 of 2007                                  -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
defendants No.1 and 2 from deriving any benefit out of the judgment<\/p>\n
and decree dated 9.6.1995; alienating any part of the landed property<\/p>\n
situated at village Kumbra, Taraf Kumra, Chilla and Jhumra etc. and<\/p>\n
from receiving any amount from the Land Acquisition Collector was also<\/p>\n
sought. It was pleaded that the plaintiff along with others filed a suit<\/p>\n
against defendants No.1 and 2 and others titled “Sukhwinder and others<\/p>\n
v. Hukam Singh and others” and on the basis of a compromise dated<\/p>\n
29.5.1995 arrived at between the parties therein, the judgment and<\/p>\n
decree dated 9.6.1995 came to be passed by the trial court. It was<\/p>\n
further pleaded that at that time Ishar Kaur widow of Nauhar Singh who<\/p>\n
was plaintiff No.5 had died during the pendency of the said suit and she<\/p>\n
had executed a registered Will dated 4.9.1989 before her death but this<\/p>\n
fact could not be taken into consideration while recording the<\/p>\n
compromise. Therefore, the compromise was a result of fraud and as<\/p>\n
such the decree dated 9.6.1995 was liable to be set aside.            The<\/p>\n
defendants being strong-headed persons wanted to alienate the suit<\/p>\n
property and that gave rise to the filing of the suit as mentioned above.<\/p>\n
            The suit was resisted by the defendants. Defendants No.9<\/p>\n
to 12 were proceeded against ex parte. Defendants No.1 and 2 and<\/p>\n
defendants No.3 to 8 filed their separate written statements but on the<\/p>\n
similar lines raising various preliminary objections. They pleaded that<\/p>\n
no fraud had been played and that Smt. Ishar Kaur who was a party in<\/p>\n
the said suit did not execute any Will. It was further pleaded that the<\/p>\n
compromise was just and fair as the property was given to all the three<\/p>\n
sons and the daughters signed the same disclaiming their share in the<\/p>\n
property in question.   The other averments made in the plaint were
\n R.S.A. No. 3415 of 2007                                   -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.<\/p>\n
            The trial court on appreciation of the evidence led by the<\/p>\n
parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree<\/p>\n
dated 25.8.2005 holding that the plaintiff had failed to bring any<\/p>\n
evidence regarding fraud etc. and that a decree based on compromise<\/p>\n
cannot be challenged by filing a separate suit and as such, the suit of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was held to be not maintainable. Against the dismissal of<\/p>\n
the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal and the first appellate court vide<\/p>\n
judgment and decree dated 1.2.2007 affirmed the findings recorded by<\/p>\n
the trial court and dismissed the appeal.        Being dissatisfied and<\/p>\n
undaunted, the plaintiff filed the present regular second appeal in this<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
            The primary issue that arises for consideration in this<\/p>\n
appeal is regarding maintainability    of separate suit to challenge a<\/p>\n
decree based on compromise which was not lawful.<\/p>\n
            Rule 3A of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short<\/p>\n
“the Code”) which was added by Act No. 104 of 1976 is an answer to<\/p>\n
the issue in hand which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “3A. Bar to suit.- No suit shall lie to set aside a<\/p>\n
                   decree on the ground that the compromise on which<\/p>\n
                   the decree is based was not lawful.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            A bare reading of the aforesaid provision leaves no doubt<\/p>\n
that second suit on the ground that the compromise arrived at between<\/p>\n
the parties on the basis of which the decree in the first suit was passed<\/p>\n
was not lawful would not lie.\n<\/p>\n
 R.S.A. No. 3415 of 2007                                       -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
           The Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in ‘Gopal<\/p>\n
Lal v. Babu Lal and others<\/a>‘ 2004 (2) CCC 462 while considering the<\/p>\n
scope of Rule 3A of Order 23 of the Code opined as under:-<\/p>\n
              “10. A compromise between the parties is nothing but<\/p>\n
                   an agreement.         According to Section 23 of the<\/p>\n
                   Contract Act 1872, the consideration or object of an<\/p>\n
                   agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by law; or<\/p>\n
                   is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat<\/p>\n
                   the provision of any law; or is fraudulent; or<\/p>\n
                   involves or implies injury to the person or property<\/p>\n
                   to another, or the Court regards it as immoral, or<\/p>\n
                   opposed to public policy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              11. In other words, the object or condition of a contract<\/p>\n
                   is   unlawful    or    not   lawful   in     the   following<\/p>\n
                   contingencies:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   1.      It is forbidden by law;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   2.      It defeats the provision of any law;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   3.      It is fraudulent;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   4.      It involves or implies injury to the person or<\/p>\n
                           property of another;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   5.      It is immoral or opposed to public policy in<\/p>\n
                           the view of the court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              12. Section 23 also provides that every agreement of<\/p>\n
                   which the consideration or object is unlawful is<\/p>\n
                   void.    Thus an agreement which is obtained by<\/p>\n
                   exercising fraud on a party to the agreement will be
\n R.S.A. No. 3415 of 2007                                    -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
                     void being an unlawful or not a lawful agreement.<\/p>\n
                     As a corollary, where a compromise, which is<\/p>\n
                     nothing but an agreement, is secured by exercising<\/p>\n
                     fraud on a party it will not only be unlawful or not<\/p>\n
                     lawful compromise but would also be void. Order<\/p>\n
                     23 Rule 3A, C.P.C., as already pointed out,<\/p>\n
                     postulates that no suit shall lie to set aside a<\/p>\n
                     decree grounded on an unlawful or not lawful<\/p>\n
                     compromise. Therefore, where a decree is being<\/p>\n
                     questioned in a suit on the ground that the<\/p>\n
                     compromise on which it was based was secured by<\/p>\n
                     fraud the bar of Rule 3A would operate since a<\/p>\n
                     compromise secured by fraud is not lawful and<\/p>\n
                     would be covered by the provisions of Order 23<\/p>\n
                     Rule 3A, C.P.C.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Learned    counsel    for   the   appellant   has   made    an<\/p>\n
unsuccessful effort before this Court to arrive at a different conclusion<\/p>\n
than that of the courts below but has failed to show that separate suit<\/p>\n
was maintainable for setting aside a compromise decree on the ground<\/p>\n
that the compromise was not lawful. The findings recorded by the courts<\/p>\n
below are concurrent and being based on correct appreciation of law do<\/p>\n
not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this<\/p>\n
Court in the second appeal. Accordingly, the courts below had rightly<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit as not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
             No question of law, much less a substantial question of law<\/p>\n
arises in this appeal for determination of this Court.
\n R.S.A. No. 3415 of 2007                              -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
           In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and<\/p>\n
the same is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
           Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no<\/p>\n
separate order is being passed in C.M. No. 9493-C of 2007 for<\/p>\n
condonation of 130 days’ delay in refiling the appeal and the same is<\/p>\n
disposed of as such.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 22, 2008                         (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)\ngbs                                              JUDGE\n R.S.A. No. 3415 of 2007                                     -7-<\/span>\n\n             C.M. No. 9492-C of 2007 IN\n             RSA No. 3415 of 2007\n\n                   ****\n\nPresent:     Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the applicant-appellant.\n\n                   ****\n\n<\/pre>\n
             This is an application under Section 149 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Civil Procedure for making up deficiency of court fee good on power of<\/p>\n
attorney.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant states that<\/p>\n
since the court fee has been affixed, the delay, if any, in affixing the<\/p>\n
court fee may be condoned.\n<\/p>\n
             In view of the above, the present application is allowed and<\/p>\n
the delay, if any, in affixing the court fee is condoned.<\/p>\n
             CM stands disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 22, 2008                               (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)\ngbs                                                    JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Dharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008 R.S.A. No. 3415 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 9493-C of 2007 and R.S.A. No. 3415 of 2007 Date of Decision: 22.9.2008 Dharam Singh …Appellant. Versus Gurdev Singh and others …Respondents. CORAM:- […]<\/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-1603","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-26T03:57:17+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-26T03:57:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1320,\"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\\\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Dharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-26T03:57:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-26T03:57:17+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-26T03:57:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008"},"wordCount":1320,"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\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008","name":"Dharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-26T03:57:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharam-singh-vs-gurdev-singh-and-others-on-22-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharam Singh vs Gurdev Singh And Others on 22 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603","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=1603"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}