{"id":163618,"date":"2009-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009"},"modified":"2015-12-01T22:14:40","modified_gmt":"2015-12-01T16:44:40","slug":"suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 May, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>Regular Second Appeal No. 2104 of 2008                      1\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n                   Regular Second Appeal No. 2104 of 2008\n                   Date of Decision: 12.5.2009\n                                     ***\n\nSuresh\n                                                       Appellant\n\n            VS.\n\n\nSmt. Mariyan &amp; Ors.\n                                                      Respondents\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,\n\nPresent:-   Mr. Anil Malik, Advocate\n            for the appellant.\n\n            Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate\n            for respondent No.1.\n            ***\n\nARVIND KUMAR, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>            The appellant was one of the defendants in the suit for<br \/>\ndeclaration and consequential relief of possession filed by the plaintiff-<br \/>\nrespondent No.1. He is aggrieved with the concurrent findings returned by<br \/>\nthe Courts below to the effect that the plaintiff is owner of 1\/27 share of<br \/>\nland measuring 331 kanals 12 marlas and 5\/72 share of land measuring 247<br \/>\nkanals 15 marlas and that the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1995 passed in<br \/>\nCivil Suit No.283 of 2.3.1995 titled as Satpal &amp; Ors. Vs. Smt. Mariyan and<br \/>\nconsequent mutation No. 4535 dated 30.9.1995 sanctioned on the basis<br \/>\nthereof, are based upon fraud and misrepresentation and that the plaintiff is<br \/>\nentitled to take over the possession from the defendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>            The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the plaintiff Smt.<br \/>\nMariyan got instituted a suit wherein she claimed that she is owner of the<br \/>\nsuit land, to the extent mentioned above, and that the judgment and decree<br \/>\ndated 6.5.1995 passed in favour of defendants is based upon fraud and<br \/>\nobtained by impersonation. It was her case that she never appeared in the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Regular Second Appeal No. 2104 of 2008                    2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>aforesaid Court and suffered the admitting statement, leading to the decree<br \/>\nof the suit, rather the defendants, by producing some other lady in the Court,<br \/>\ngot obtained the said decree in their favour in respect of the suit land. It was<br \/>\nfurther case of the plaintiff that the defendants have no pre-existing right in<br \/>\nthe suit property. Thus, a prayer was made to set aside the impugned<br \/>\njudgment and consequent mutation entered in favour of the defendants and<br \/>\nthat the defendants be directed to restore the possession of the suit land to<br \/>\nher.\n<\/p>\n<p>             On the other hand, the stand of the defendants No.2 to 4 who<br \/>\ncontested the suit, was that the said statement, leading to the decreetal of the<br \/>\nsuit was made by the plaintiff out of her own sweet will, pursuant to a<br \/>\nfamily settlement arrived at between the parties. The plea of fraud and<br \/>\nimpersonation, as raised by the plaintiff, were denied and it was prayed that<br \/>\nthe plaintiff is not entitled to claim possession of any part of the suit land<br \/>\nfrom them.\n<\/p>\n<p>             After contest, the suit was decreed in the manner indicated<br \/>\nabove and the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed. Hence this<br \/>\nregular second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>             I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone<br \/>\nthrough the paper book carefully.\n<\/p>\n<p>             The main stress of the learned counsel for the appellant is as to<br \/>\nthe maintainability of the suit filed by the plaintiff. Although no such plea<br \/>\nwas taken while filing the written statement and obviously for that reason<br \/>\nno issue to that effect was framed, yet the argument of learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe appellant is that as per Order 23 Rule 3-A there is a complete bar to file<br \/>\nseparate suit to challenge the compromise decree and the court is prohibited<br \/>\nfrom entertaining such a suit and that the remedy of the party aggrieved may<br \/>\nbe by way of an application before the same Court. In this context, reliance<br \/>\nhas been placed on the judgment rendered by coordinating Single Bench of<br \/>\nthis Court in the case of Smt. Shanti Devi (dead) represented by LR. Vs.<br \/>\nGian Chand 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 658. However, this Court is of the<br \/>\nopinion that the appellant cannot derive any benefit from Smt. Shanti&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra). In the case of Ram Kishan &amp; Ors. Vs. Smt. Sardari Devi &amp; Ors.<br \/>\n2002(4) RCR (Civil) 837, similar argument was raised on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellants therein and the learned Single Judge, while relying upon the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Regular Second Appeal No. 2104 of 2008                    3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>answer of the Division Bench to the question of law formulated in this<br \/>\nregard, held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                   &#8220;11.      The contention raised by the learned counsel for<br \/>\n                   the appellant cannot be said to be devoid of any merit,<br \/>\n                   but keeping in view the fact that a Division Bench of this<br \/>\n                   Court specifically, upon instructions, formulated a<br \/>\n                   question of law and answered the same in the following<br \/>\n                   terms:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                          Q.      What is the import of the words &#8216;not lawful&#8217;<br \/>\n                          in Rule 3-A of Order 23 of the code; do these<br \/>\n                          words have or have not the same connotation as<br \/>\n                          the words &#8220;shall not be deemed to be lawful&#8221; in<br \/>\n                          the Explanation to Rule 3-A of Order 23 of the<br \/>\n                          code or to be a little more specific, whether a<br \/>\n                          separate suit lies to set aside the decree on the<br \/>\n                          ground that the agreement or the compromise on<br \/>\n                          which it is based is void having been brought<br \/>\n                          about by mis-representation, undue influence or<br \/>\n                          fraud etc.?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                          Ans.    The words &#8220;not lawful&#8221; occurring in Rule<br \/>\n                          3-A of Order 23 of the code have wider content<br \/>\n                          than similar words in the Explanation to Rule 3.<br \/>\n                          The Explanation to Rule 3 deals with agreements<br \/>\n                          or compromise which are not to be deemed to be<br \/>\n                          lawful if they are void or voidable under the<br \/>\n                          Indian Contract Act, 1872 but the agreement or<br \/>\n                          compromises which are not lawful as referred to<br \/>\n                          in Rule 3-A are more general in term and are not<br \/>\n                          engrafted by the limitations as insertted in the<br \/>\n                          Explanation appended to Rule3. If the agreement<br \/>\n                          or compromise is not the result of consensus of<br \/>\n                          mind of two person in regard to certain matters,<br \/>\n                          viz. when the consent of one of them to the terms is<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Regular Second Appeal No. 2104 of 2008                   4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                         obtained by the other by some illegal means,<br \/>\n                         namely, by fraud, coercion or undue influence,<br \/>\n                         thre is in fact no compromise. Rule 3-A does not<br \/>\n                         bar the maintainability of the suit challenging the<br \/>\n                         compromise on these grounds. However, the Court<br \/>\n                         can in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction also<br \/>\n                         relieve the party alleging fraud, coercion or undue<br \/>\n                         influence of the agreement. Question No.1 is<br \/>\n                         answered accordingly.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                   12.    In view of the above law laid down by a Division<br \/>\n                   bench of this Court, which is binding on a Single Judge<br \/>\n                   of this Court, I would follow the law as laid down despite<br \/>\n                   the above contention. As the Division Bench has held<br \/>\n                   that a suit challenging a compromise decree on the<br \/>\n                   ground that it was obtained by misrepresentation and<br \/>\n                   fraud is maintainable, the argument of the appellants<br \/>\n                   that no suit was maintainable, cannot be sustained.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>            In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court is of the firm<br \/>\nopinion that the suit filed by the plaintiff was very much maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Adverting to the merits of the case, both the Courts below<br \/>\nconcurrently held that the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1995 and the<br \/>\nconsequent mutation are illegal and void being based upon fraud. While<br \/>\narriving to the said conclusion, both the Courts below took into<br \/>\nconsideration the report of Finger Print Expert as also that of Director,<br \/>\nFinger Print Bureau Haryana, Madhuban, wherein, after comparison of<br \/>\nstandard thumb impression of plaintiff with those appearing on her admitted<br \/>\nstatement recorded in the Court on 21.4.1995 and application moved on<br \/>\nsame date, it was opined to be of different persons and not matched with the<br \/>\nstandard thumb impression of plaintiff. No doubt PW.3 Dr. Inderjit Singh,<br \/>\nHanding Writing Expert was examined by the plaintiff, but the specimen<br \/>\nthumb impressions were also got examined by the Court from Director,<br \/>\nFinger Print Bureau, Haryana, Madhuban at the instance of the defendants<br \/>\nand they never objected the said report. Not only this, it was found that on<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> Regular Second Appeal No. 2104 of 2008                     5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>filing the said suit, notice was issued to Smt Mariyan (defendant therein) for<br \/>\n2.6.1995, however, on 21.4.1995 the file was taken up on an application<br \/>\nallegedly moved by Mariyan and her admitted statement was recorded on<br \/>\nthat date itself and thus, no notice of the suit could be issued to the<br \/>\ndefendant therein. As said above, the thumb impression appearing on<br \/>\napplication as well as statement dated 21.4.1995 were found not tallied with<br \/>\nstandard thumb impression of Smt. Mariyan. The plaintiff is sister of father<br \/>\nof the appellant. The theory of family settlement between the parties was<br \/>\nalso discarded by the Courts below by observing that since a Hindu woman<br \/>\nbecomes absolute owner of the property possessed by her by virtue of<br \/>\nSection 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, therefore, no person can<br \/>\nhave pre-existing right therein and once the defendants had no pre-existing<br \/>\nright in the property held by the plaintiff, there was no question of any legal<br \/>\nand valid family settlement between the parties.            By observing that<br \/>\nlimitation would not come in the way of setting aside a void order and also<br \/>\nwhen the suit is filed on the basis of title, it has been concluded that the suit<br \/>\nis well within limitation. Accordingly, it has been held that the defendants<br \/>\nhave no right to retain the possession of the suit land on the basis of<br \/>\njudgment and decree, which was a nullity. Said findings are discernible<br \/>\nfrom para No.16 of the judgment rendered by the learned first appellate<br \/>\nCourt, while affirming the findings returned by the learned trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>             In view of the above, there is nothing to deviate from what has<br \/>\nbeen concurrently held by the Courts below. It cannot be said that the<br \/>\nfindings returned by the Courts below suffer from any illegality or<br \/>\nperversity or that the same are based on no evidence. No question of law,<br \/>\nmuch less substantial question of law arises for determination in this regular<br \/>\nsecond appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                     (ARVIND KUMAR)<br \/>\n                                                              JUDGE<br \/>\nMay 12,2009<br \/>\nJiten\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 May, 2009 Regular Second Appeal No. 2104 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2104 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.5.2009 *** Suresh Appellant VS. Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors. Respondents CORAM: HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE [&hellip;]<\/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-163618","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-01T16:44:40+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-01T16:44:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1560,\"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\\\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-01T16:44:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 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":"Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-01T16:44:40+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-01T16:44:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009"},"wordCount":1560,"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\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009","name":"Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-01T16:44:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suresh-vs-smt-mariyan-ors-on-12-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suresh vs Smt. Mariyan &amp; Ors on 12 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\/163618","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=163618"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163618\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163618"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163618"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163618"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}