{"id":161828,"date":"2008-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-01-17T10:27:31","modified_gmt":"2016-01-17T04:57:31","slug":"bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Bal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 September, 2008<\/div>\n
RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M)                          1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                             RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M)\n                                             Date of decision:24.9.2008\n\nBal Krishan                                       ...... Appellant\n\n                                  versus\n\nVaranjit Singh and another                   .......Respondents\n\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG\n\n                       ****\n<\/pre>\n
Present:    Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate for the appellant.<\/p>\n
            Mr. D.S. Brar, Advocate for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                           ****<\/p>\n
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J .\n<\/p>\n
CM No.8881-C of 2008<\/p>\n
            This is an application for recalling of order dated 4.9.2008<\/p>\n
whereby    the   exparte    order    dated   4.8.2006   for   granting   “stay<\/p>\n
dispossession” was vacated. Since the main appeal is being heard on<\/p>\n
merits, no separate order is required to be passed.<\/p>\n
RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M)<\/p>\n
1.          This is defendant’s second appeal challenging the judgment<\/p>\n
and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondents<\/p>\n
for possession by way of redemption of the plot in question has been<\/p>\n
decreed.\n<\/p>\n
2.          The plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession by way of<\/p>\n
redemption of the plot in question on payment of Rs.1,000\/- as mortgage<\/p>\n
money on the averments that the plot in dispute is the ownership of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and the same is under mortgage with the defendant for a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,000\/- by virtue of registered mortgage deed dated 2.4.1992. The<\/p>\n
plaintiffs want to get the plot in question redeemed by making payment of
\n RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M)                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.1,000\/- as mortgage money. The defendant was asked to accept the<\/p>\n
mortgage money and leave the plot in question, but, he has refused to do<\/p>\n
so. Hence, this suit.\n<\/p>\n
3.          The suit has been contested by the defendant-appellant<\/p>\n
stating that he is the tenant under the plaintiffs in the premises shown as<\/p>\n
Green as well as Red since 1990-91 and the plaintiffs had been receiving<\/p>\n
the rent of the premises till January 1999 but have not issued any receipt<\/p>\n
despite demand by the defendant. Moreover, there is no concern between<\/p>\n
alleged mortgage deed and Khasra Nos.4336 and 4337 and the portion<\/p>\n
shown as Red in the site plan. There is no mortgage deed relating to<\/p>\n
portion shown as Red in the site plan. The defendant does not admit the<\/p>\n
factum or validity of alleged mortgage regarding portion shown as Red in<\/p>\n
the site plan.   The alleged Red portion in      the site plan and alleged<\/p>\n
mortgage are not matching each other and thus, the defendant has prayed<\/p>\n
for dismissal of the suit.     The defendant has alleged that there exists<\/p>\n
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties relating to plot<\/p>\n
shown Green and Red and the defendant is using the same as store for<\/p>\n
his business.    Hence, on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court<\/p>\n
framed the following issues:\n<\/p>\n
                   “1.   Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession by<\/p>\n
                   redemption of vacant plot measuring 1 \u00bd marla shown in<\/p>\n
                   red in the site plan? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   2.    Whether the plot in question is under mortgage<\/p>\n
                   with the defendant for a sum of Rs.1000\/- by virtue of a<\/p>\n
                   registered mortgage deed dated 2.2.1992? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   3.    Whether the suit is bad for non-joining of Smt.<\/p>\n
                   Sarvjeet Kaur as she is a necessary party? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   4.    Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try
\n RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M)                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
                   and decide the suit? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   5.    Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the<\/p>\n
                   present suit? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   6.    Relief.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
4.          Vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2006, the trial Court<\/p>\n
decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents.\n<\/p>\n
5.          Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the<\/p>\n
defendant-appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, Moga, vide impugned judgment and              decree dated<\/p>\n
11.5.2006. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Lower Appellate<\/p>\n
Court is reproduced hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “The point evolved for determination in this appeal is as<\/p>\n
                   to whether the plea of the appellant regarding tenancy is<\/p>\n
                   tenable or not and whether the plaintiff is entitled to<\/p>\n
                   possession by redemption of the mortgaged property.<\/p>\n
                   The plaintiff has proved the mortgage property.       The<\/p>\n
                   plaintiff has proved the mortgage deed by examination<\/p>\n
                   of PW2 Harbhajan Singh who tendered into evidence his<\/p>\n
                   sworn affidavit Ex.PW2\/A and Varanjit Singh plaintiff<\/p>\n
                   himself who tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.PW3\/A<\/p>\n
                   and it is not proved that this mortgage deed has been<\/p>\n
                   the result of mis-representation of fraud.      The only<\/p>\n
                   objection is that the site plan is not prepared according<\/p>\n
                   to the mortgage deed but the factum of execution of<\/p>\n
                   mortgage deed and the defendant being mortgagee<\/p>\n
                   could not be rebutted by any evidence although the<\/p>\n
                   defendants had proved on record judgment in a previous
\n RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M)                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
                  case titled Bal Kishan v. Varanjit Singh decided by Shri<\/p>\n
                  Mohammad Gulzar in Civil suit No.30 dated 6.2.1999<\/p>\n
                  decided on 12.8.2002.       The perusal of the judgment<\/p>\n
                  reveals that only the possession had been upheld in<\/p>\n
                  favour of the defendants and it has been rightly<\/p>\n
                  observed in this judgement Ex.PX that title is not to be<\/p>\n
                  decided.    This judgment is of no help because the<\/p>\n
                  defendants are admitted to be in possession and the suit<\/p>\n
                  is for possession by redemption. Since the defendants<\/p>\n
                  had not been able to prove relationship of landlord and<\/p>\n
                  tenant between the parties.          So, their possession<\/p>\n
                  becomes permissive and except the portion which has<\/p>\n
                  been made subject matter of the mortgage deed, the<\/p>\n
                  possession on the remaining portion of the defendants<\/p>\n
                  is that of trespasser which the defendants are entitled to<\/p>\n
                  recover in due course of law.        Finding no scope of<\/p>\n
                  interference of the verdict of seeking possession by<\/p>\n
                  redemption of learned court of 1st instance, the appeal is<\/p>\n
                  dismissed and it is directed that the plaintiffs are directed<\/p>\n
                  to make payment of the mortgage money to the<\/p>\n
                  defendants against proper receipt and if the defendants<\/p>\n
                  do not accept it, to deposit in the Court and will be then<\/p>\n
                  entitled to take possession of the suit property. Appeal<\/p>\n
                  stands dismissed with costs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.          Still not satisfied, the defendant-appellant has filed the present<\/p>\n
appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below.<\/p>\n
7.          Mr. Rajesh Punj, learned counsel for the appellant, has<\/p>\n
vehemently argued that the findings of the Courts below are contrary to the
\n RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M)                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence on record. The respondent is seeking possession of redemption<\/p>\n
of vacant plot measuring 1 \u00bd marla shown Red in the site plan Annexure<\/p>\n
P-3 but the site plan proved and produced by the respondent is contrary to<\/p>\n
the mortgage deed. Learned counsel has further argued that from the<\/p>\n
perusal of the mortgage deed and the site plan Annexure P-3, the<\/p>\n
description of the property in dispute does not match and therefore, the<\/p>\n
judgment and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. It was<\/p>\n
further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent<\/p>\n
is owner of 15 marla of premises fencing with boundary wall and a main<\/p>\n
gate of Gill Road which was rented out to the appellant in the year 1990-91<\/p>\n
at the rate of Rs.350\/- per month and later on enhanced to Rs.500\/- per<\/p>\n
month. Since the appellant was the tenant of the entire 50 marla area, the<\/p>\n
respondent with a clever device, pressurized the appellant to execute the<\/p>\n
mortgage deed area measuring 1 \u00bd marla only for a sum of Rs.1,000\/- just<\/p>\n
to put pressure on him and out of 15 marla gave, boundary in the western<\/p>\n
side of the premises in question. However, the perusal of the plaint and<\/p>\n
the site plan produced and proved by the respondents, shows that the<\/p>\n
appellant is seeking possession of area 10’x 40′ measuring 1 \u00bd marla on<\/p>\n
the eastern side of the premises in question which is contrary to the<\/p>\n
boundary mentioned in the mortgage deed and as such, the possession<\/p>\n
cannot be given to the respondents. It is the further argument of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant that mortgage deed which was only for a<\/p>\n
meager amount was created as a clear device just to oust the plaintiff-<\/p>\n
respondents and also to defeat the provisions of the East Punjab Urban<\/p>\n
Rent Restriction Act. In order to succeed, the respondents threatened to<\/p>\n
get vacated the entire area forcibly and illegally which compelled the<\/p>\n
appellant to file Civil Suit No.30 of 6.2.1999 which was decreed by the trial<\/p>\n
Court vide its judgment dated 12.8.2002 Ex. D-5\/3 in which the trial Court
\n RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M)                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
came to the conclusion that the appellant is in possession of the entire<\/p>\n
area as shown in the site plan (Ex.D3) and in the alternative, it has been<\/p>\n
argued that the entire area shown as Green and Red is in possession of<\/p>\n
the appellant and since the respondents have failed to file the suit for<\/p>\n
taking the possession of the entire area, they cannot get the possession of<\/p>\n
1 \u00bd marla in execution of the decree which cannot be executed. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel thus, has stated that the findings of the Courts below are liable to<\/p>\n
be reversed in favour of the appellant.          On the basis of the above<\/p>\n
arguments, learned counsel has sought to raise the following substantial<\/p>\n
question of law:-\n<\/p>\n
                    “(i)    Whether the boundaries mentioned in the plaint, is<\/p>\n
                    not matching and different to the mortgage deed,<\/p>\n
                    Annexure A-1(Ex.P-1 as annexed in the suit)?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    (ii)    Whether the boundaries mentioned in the site<\/p>\n
                    plan, Annexure A-2 (Ex.P-3 as annexed in the suit) are<\/p>\n
                    vague, imaginary and contrary to the mortgage deed<\/p>\n
                    Ex.A-1 (Ex.P-1 as annexed in the suit)?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    (iii)   Whether non filing of replication in rebuttal to the<\/p>\n
                    written statement is an admitted fact with regard to<\/p>\n
                    tenancy of entire area?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (iv)    Whether the admitted possession of the appellant<\/p>\n
                    of the entire premises consisting of 15 marlas even<\/p>\n
                    before mortgage of 1 \u00bd marla area leads to the<\/p>\n
                    inference with regard to tenancy as pleaded?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    (v)     Whether the non-explanation of the respondent<\/p>\n
                    with regard to the possession of the appellant on the<\/p>\n
                    entire area leads to presumption of tenancy?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    (vi)    Whether the judgment and decree as it can be
\n RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M)                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
                   executed practically against the appellant?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (vi)   Whether the oral evidence of the appellant is<\/p>\n
                   sufficient to presume tenancy against the bald statement<\/p>\n
                   of respondent No.1?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.           On the other hand, Sh. D.S. Brar, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents has supported the findings of the Courts below and has<\/p>\n
argued that the question of law as raised by the counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
does not arise from the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts<\/p>\n
below. There was no issue before the Courts below with regard to the<\/p>\n
identity of the property under mortgage and the alleged tenancy of the<\/p>\n
appellant.   The appellant has not    claimed any other issue except the<\/p>\n
issues framed by the trial Court. Neither any such issue regarding alleged<\/p>\n
tenancy of the appellant was argued nor the Lower Appellate Court on<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence has concurred with the findings of the trial Court<\/p>\n
and thus, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and<\/p>\n
the same is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
9.           I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the<\/p>\n
record.\n<\/p>\n
10.          I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant. The only issue between the parties was with regard to the<\/p>\n
mortgage of redemption plot in question as shown Red in the site plan. In<\/p>\n
order to prove the mortgage of the plot in question, the plaintiff himself<\/p>\n
appeared in the witness box as PW3\/A and stated that he had mortgaged<\/p>\n
the suit property vide mortgage deed dated 2.4.1992 for a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,000\/-. The plaintiff also examined PW2 Harbhajan Singh, who is the<\/p>\n
attesting witness of the mortgage deed Ex.P1.         On the other hand, no<\/p>\n
witness has been produced by the appellant to rebut the evidence to prove<\/p>\n
the execution of the mortgage deed Ex.P1. In fact, the case of the
\n RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M)                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant is that he is the tenant in possession of 15 marlas of the whole of<\/p>\n
the premises which belongs to the respondents and the mortgage deed of<\/p>\n
the plot in question was created as a clever device to avoid the application<\/p>\n
of provisions of Rent Restriction Act. Thus, in fact the mortgage of the plot<\/p>\n
in question has been admitted by the appellant himself. However, he has<\/p>\n
failed to prove the defence taken by him. There is no evidence to prove<\/p>\n
that this mortgage deed has been the result of misrepresentation or fraud.<\/p>\n
The only objection is that the site plan has not been prepared according to<\/p>\n
the mortgage deed. Once the mortgage in question is admitted and<\/p>\n
tenancy of the appellant has not been proved, the argument is of no help to<\/p>\n
the appellant.     The judgment and decree dated 12.8.2002 in Civil Suit<\/p>\n
titled as Balakrishan v. Charanjit Singh is also of no help to the appellant.<\/p>\n
In that decree, the possession of the appellant has been upheld only and it<\/p>\n
is specifically stated that the title is not decided. It was for the appellant to<\/p>\n
prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but he<\/p>\n
has miserably failed to prove this said plea.\n<\/p>\n
11.           Thus, I find no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by<\/p>\n
the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for determination of<\/p>\n
this Court.\n<\/p>\n
12.           No merits. Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 24, 2008                              (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)\nps                                                      JUDGE\n RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M)   9<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Bal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 September, 2008 RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2939 of 2006(O&M) Date of decision:24.9.2008 Bal Krishan …… Appellant versus Varanjit Singh and another …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG **** Present: […]<\/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-161828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 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\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-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=\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-17T04:57:31+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\\\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-17T04:57:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2171,\"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\\\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Bal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-17T04:57:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 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":"Bal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 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\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-17T04:57:31+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\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-17T04:57:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008"},"wordCount":2171,"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\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008","name":"Bal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-17T04:57:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-krishan-vs-varanjit-singh-and-another-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bal Krishan vs Varanjit Singh And Another on 24 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\/161828","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=161828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}