{"id":166666,"date":"2008-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008"},"modified":"2016-07-07T01:03:21","modified_gmt":"2016-07-06T19:33:21","slug":"shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
*                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI\n\n                       Judgment reserved on : November 18, 2008\n%                      Judgment delivered on : December 03, 2008\n\n\n+                        RFA 01\/1995\n\n      SHRI RAJBIR & ORS.                  ..... Appellants\n\n                    Through:   Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv.\n                               with Mr.A.P.S.Gambhir, Adv.\n\n\n\n                               VERSUS\n\n\n     SMT.PADMA DEVI & ORS.                   ..... Respondents\n\n                    Through:   Mr.J.K.Jain, Adv. for R-1 to R-6.\n                               Mr.K.R.Chawla, Adv. for\n                               Mr.Charan Singh (Respondent).\n\n\nCORAM:\n\nHon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog\nHon'ble Mr.Justice J.R. Midha\n\n\n1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed\n   to see the judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                    Yes\n\n3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?            Yes\n\n\n: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.             The ancestry of the litigating parties may be noted.<\/p>\n
The pedigree table is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
RFA No.01\/95                                           Page 1 of 12<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   NARBHA
\n                                       |\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                ————————————————\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               |                                                |\n          NANAK                                RAM DUTT (died issueless)\n               |\n         CHAJJU RAM\n               |\n<\/pre>\n
————————————————————————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
|                                      |                                 |\nJawahar Singh                      Ghasi                             Jit Singh\n(defendants 1 to 4 (defendants 5 to 8                               (plaintiffs\nare the sons of               are the sons of Ghasi)                 are the wife,\nJawahar Singh)                                                     sons and\n                                                                  daughter of Jit\n                                                                    Singh)\n\n<\/pre>\n
2.             Jit Singh filed a suit for partition of a plot of land<\/p>\n
admeasuring         1200     sq.yds.      assigned      No.1572       in    village<\/p>\n
Magholpur Kalan stating that the village was commonly known<\/p>\n
as Mangolpur Kalan and that their ancestors were the<\/p>\n
proprietors of vast land in said village and were biswedars i.e.<\/p>\n
co-sharers of the abadi land in the village, on which they had a<\/p>\n
house and gher\/ghitwar. The ancestory was stated to be as per<\/p>\n
the afore-noted pedigree table. It was stated that during the<\/p>\n
settlement of the abadi, effected in the village in the year<\/p>\n
1880, the afore-noted plot number was assigned to the land in<\/p>\n
possession of their ancestors.             Alleging that the holding was<\/p>\n
joint, partition thereof was sought.               Right of Ghasi, Jawahar<\/p>\n
Singh and Jit Singh was pleaded to be 1\/3rd each.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.             On the death of Jit Singh his wife, sons and daughter
\nRFA No.01\/95                                                       Page 2 of 12<\/span>
\n were substituted as the plaintiffs being his legal heirs.<\/p>\n
4.             The children of Ghasi opposed the claim alleging<\/p>\n
that they were the exclusive owners of the land and that the<\/p>\n
children of Chajju had separated long before they, i.e. children<\/p>\n
of Ghasi attained majority.\n<\/p>\n
5.             No written statement was filed by the legal heirs of<\/p>\n
Jawahar Singh who were impleaded as defendants No.5 to 8.<\/p>\n
6.             Needless to state, on the pleadings of the parties,<\/p>\n
the only material issue which arose for consideration was<\/p>\n
whether a separation had taken place amongst the children of<\/p>\n
Chajju as alleged in the written statement.<\/p>\n
7.             Vide   impugned    judgment    and   decree    dated<\/p>\n
25.11.1994, a finding has been returned against defendants<\/p>\n
No.1 to 4 holding that said defendants have failed to prove a<\/p>\n
partition amongst the children of Chajju; resulting in a<\/p>\n
preliminary decree being passed declaring the share of<\/p>\n
plaintiffs to be 1\/3rd (jointly); that of defendants No.1 to 4 being<\/p>\n
1\/3rd (jointly); and that of defendants No.5 to 8 being 1\/3rd<\/p>\n
(jointly).\n<\/p>\n
8.             At the trial, which commenced during the life-time<\/p>\n
of Jit Singh, he examined himself as PW-1, and in his deposition<\/p>\n
reiterated the facts pleaded in the plaint.<\/p>\n
9.             Relevant would it be to note that during cross-
\nRFA No.01\/95                                         Page 3 of 12<\/span>
\n examination he was questioned as to what happened to the<\/p>\n
agricultural lands owned by the family, to which he replied that<\/p>\n
the same were acquired. No suggestion was put to the witness<\/p>\n
that the respective family members were assessed separately<\/p>\n
for compensation in respect of the acquired lands.<\/p>\n
10.            One Pyare was examined as PW-2, who deposed<\/p>\n
that he was a resident of the village and that no separation<\/p>\n
took place amongst the children of Chajju.<\/p>\n
11.            PW-3,   Sagan   Kumar   Saini,   a   draftsman       by<\/p>\n
profession, proved the site-plan of the land, stating that he had<\/p>\n
prepared the same i.e. Ex.PW-3\/1.\n<\/p>\n
12.            Relevant would it be to note that PW-3 was not<\/p>\n
cross-examined with respect to the site-plan.        He was only<\/p>\n
questioned with respect to his qualifications of being a<\/p>\n
draftsman. He informed that he had a diploma in the relevant<\/p>\n
subject.\n<\/p>\n
13.            PW-4, Pawan Kumar Seth, a clerk from the Record<\/p>\n
Room (Judicial) Revenue, Tis Hazari produced the record<\/p>\n
pertaining to ejectment proceedings initiated by the Gaon<\/p>\n
Sabha of Village Mangolpur Kalan against Ghasi and Jawahar<\/p>\n
Singh.\n<\/p>\n
14.            PW-5, Chaudhary Risal Singh, Advocate, proved<\/p>\n
Ex.PW-5\/1, being a complaint dated 28.11.1968 made to the
\nRFA No.01\/95                                         Page 4 of 12<\/span>
\n Revenue Assistant by the Panchayat Secretary on behalf of<\/p>\n
Gaon Sabha Mangolpur Kalan alleging that Ghasi and Jawahar<\/p>\n
Singh, sons of Chajju had illegally trespassed upon the land of<\/p>\n
the Gaon Sabha.\n<\/p>\n
15.            After examining PW-1 to PW-5, counsel for the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs tendered in evidence the certified copy of the order<\/p>\n
dated 30.3.1970, Ex.P-2, passed by the Revenue Assistant<\/p>\n
dismissing the complaint of the Gaon Sabha (Ex.PW-5\/1)<\/p>\n
holding that the disputed land did not belong to the Gaon<\/p>\n
Sabha, and that the record of settlement effected in 1880<\/p>\n
revealed that the land recorded in the revenue record, vide<\/p>\n
serial entry No.1572, was to the effect that the said land was<\/p>\n
within the lal dora and that on the promulgation of the Delhi<\/p>\n
Land Reforms Act 1954, vide Section 8 thereof, the land was<\/p>\n
treated as held by the proprietors thereof i.e. the persons in<\/p>\n
possession of the land.      He also tendered Ex.P-3, being the<\/p>\n
notice issued by the Revenue Assistant when he received the<\/p>\n
complaint Ex.PW-5\/1.\n<\/p>\n
16.            The contesting defendants examined Rajbir i.e. son<\/p>\n
of Ghasi as DW-1 who reiterated that a separation had taken<\/p>\n
place amongst the children of Chajju.\n<\/p>\n
17.            Relevant would it be to note that the date or the<\/p>\n
year in which the alleged partition took place was not stated by
\nRFA No.01\/95                                        Page 5 of 12<\/span>
\n him.\n<\/p>\n
18.            DW-2, Ram Naraian, a villager residing in the same<\/p>\n
village also deposed about a partition being effected, but did<\/p>\n
not state the date or the month or the year when the same<\/p>\n
happened.\n<\/p>\n
19.            Two witnesses were examined, both were shown to<\/p>\n
be DW-3.        The first witness examined as DW-3, Budh Ram,<\/p>\n
stated that the disputed land was in possession of the sons of<\/p>\n
Ghasi and that neither Jit Singh nor Jawahar Singh were ever in<\/p>\n
possession thereof. The second witness examined as DW-3, Jai<\/p>\n
Kishan, a co-villager deposed that the name of their village was<\/p>\n
Mangolpur Kalan.\n<\/p>\n
20.            After the trial was over and before arguments<\/p>\n
commenced, with the consent of the contesting parties certain<\/p>\n
documents, filed by the contesting defendants were taken on<\/p>\n
record and were assigned exhibit marks D-1 to D-6. It may be<\/p>\n
noted that two documents were assigned the same exhibit<\/p>\n
mark i.e. D-5 being a certified copy of LR-5 i.e. a revenue entry<\/p>\n
to the effect that the lands detailed therein comprised in<\/p>\n
Khasra No.17\/1\/1, 17\/2, 31\/7, 31\/14, 31\/17 and 31\/24 were<\/p>\n
entered in the revenue record as in the cultivatory possession<\/p>\n
of Ghasi and a certified copy of a khatauni evidencing the same<\/p>\n
i.e. what was recorded in LR-5.\n<\/p>\n
RFA No.01\/95                                        Page 6 of 12<\/span><\/p>\n
 21.            Case projected by the contesting defendants before<\/p>\n
the learned Trial Judge was on Ex.D-1 to D-6 (wrongly referred<\/p>\n
to in the impugned decision as Ex.D-1 to D-7; the probable<\/p>\n
reason being that two documents were assigned the same<\/p>\n
exhibit number i.e. D-5).      It was urged that the same show<\/p>\n
Ghasi to be the recorded owner of the lands detailed in LR-5<\/p>\n
from which an inference of partition was sought to be drawn.<\/p>\n
The second contention urged was that the dispute between the<\/p>\n
Gaon Sabha and Ghasi evidenced by Ex.P-2, P-3 and Ex.PW-5\/1<\/p>\n
revealed that only Ghasi was in possession of the disputed<\/p>\n
land, where from an inference was sought to be drawn of a<\/p>\n
partition being effected. A third contention was urged that the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs were not even sure whether the disputed land was<\/p>\n
comprised in village Magholpur Kalan or Mangolpur Kalan.           As<\/p>\n
against that, the plaintiffs urged that partition has to be proved<\/p>\n
by cogent evidence and that there was none.<\/p>\n
22.            Learned Trial Judge has held in favour of the<\/p>\n
appellants. The principal reasoning is that there is no evidence<\/p>\n
to prove partition.       Exhibits D-1 to D-6 were held to be<\/p>\n
irrelevant evidence as the same did not pertain to the land in<\/p>\n
dispute. Learned Trial Judge has held that no witness of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs was examined on the issue of the name of the village<\/p>\n
and hence concluded that the identity of the land was not in
\nRFA No.01\/95                                        Page 7 of 12<\/span>
\n dispute.\n<\/p>\n
23.            At the hearing of the appeal, the very same<\/p>\n
contentions which were urged before the learned Trial Judge<\/p>\n
were pressed.       One additional submission was urged, being<\/p>\n
that, Jawahar Singh had filed another suit for partition which<\/p>\n
was directed to be clubbed with the instant suit and that the<\/p>\n
learned Trial Judge has erred in deciding the instant suit<\/p>\n
without deciding the suit filed by Jawahar Singh. It was urged<\/p>\n
that a contradictory finding may result if suit filed by Jawahar<\/p>\n
Singh is decided by holding that a partition took place.<\/p>\n
24.            Pertaining to the name of the village, suffice would<\/p>\n
it be to state that in para 3 of the plaint, the plaintiffs clearly<\/p>\n
pleaded that the name of the village was Magholpur Kalan and<\/p>\n
that it was commonly known as Mangolpur Kalan. There is no<\/p>\n
evidence on record that in Delhi there exist two villages, one<\/p>\n
called Magholpur Kalan and the other called Mangolpur Kalan.<\/p>\n
Thus, we concur with the findings recorded by the learned Trial<\/p>\n
Judge that the contesting defendants were trying to confuse<\/p>\n
the issue.\n<\/p>\n
25.            The contention of the contesting defendants with<\/p>\n
reference to Ex.P-2, P-3 and PW-5\/1 may be dealt with.<\/p>\n
26.            The same pertain to a claim by the Gaon Sabha that<\/p>\n
the land in question belonged to the Gaon Sabha and that
\nRFA No.01\/95                                         Page 8 of 12<\/span>
\n Ghasi and Jawahar Singh had illegally trespassed upon the<\/p>\n
same and hence were liable to be ejected under Section 86-A<\/p>\n
of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954. In said proceedings, the<\/p>\n
defence taken was that in the settlement effected in the year<\/p>\n
1880 the land in question was, vide serial No.1572, shown as<\/p>\n
belonging to and in possession of the ancestors of Ghasi and<\/p>\n
Jawahar Singh and that it was within the abadi of the village<\/p>\n
and that with the promulgation of the Delhi Land Reforms Act<\/p>\n
1954, vide Section 8 thereof, was treated as abadi land with<\/p>\n
proprietary right vested in the occupants of the land. The issue<\/p>\n
of partition was not in the forefront in said proceedings.<\/p>\n
Needless to state, the defence succeeded by proving that the<\/p>\n
ancestors of Ghasi and Jawahar Singh were the proprietors of<\/p>\n
the land in question.    No finding was returned that after the<\/p>\n
original settlement which took place in the year 1880, by and<\/p>\n
under a partition effected amongst the children of Chajju, Ghasi<\/p>\n
and\/or Jawahar Singh came into the possession of the land in<\/p>\n
dispute.\n<\/p>\n
27.            Ex.D-1 to D-7 are certainly relevant, but not<\/p>\n
conclusive of the proof of partition.    The relevance of the<\/p>\n
documents is that they show Ghasi as the bhumidar of<\/p>\n
agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.17\/1\/1, 17\/2, 31\/7,<\/p>\n
31\/14, 31\/17 and 31\/24 in the revenue estate of village
\nRFA No.01\/95                                      Page 9 of 12<\/span>
\n Mangolpur Kalan.         It could be urged there from that the<\/p>\n
exclusive bhumidari rights in favour of Ghasi establish a<\/p>\n
partition. But this contention ignores the fact that to urge so, it<\/p>\n
has to be proved that the brothers of Ghasi were likewise<\/p>\n
recorded as exclusive bhumidars of some other lands which<\/p>\n
were ancestral.\n<\/p>\n
28.            Ghasi could have independently acquired title to<\/p>\n
certain   agricultural    lands   in   the   village.   It   would      be<\/p>\n
impermissible to draw conclusions by assuming the existence<\/p>\n
of a fact which has not been proved. In addition to this we may<\/p>\n
note that PW-1, Jit Singh stated in his examination in chief that<\/p>\n
all agricultural land belonging to the family was acquired by the<\/p>\n
government in the year 1954. The same went uncontested in<\/p>\n
the cross examination.\n<\/p>\n
29.            Law is clear that possession by one co-sharer, in the<\/p>\n
eyes of law, is possession of all and a mere occupation of a<\/p>\n
large portion or even of an entire joint property necessarily<\/p>\n
does not amount to an ouster or a proof of partition.            In the<\/p>\n
decision reported as AIR 1961 Punjab 528 Sant Ram Nagina<\/p>\n
Ram vs. Daya Ram Nagina Ram<\/a> it was held as under:-<\/p>\n
      “(1) A co-owner has an interest in the whole property
\n      and also in every parcel of it.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (2) Possession of joint property by one co-owner is in
\n      the eye of law, possession of all, even if all but one are
\nRFA No.01\/95                                            Page 10 of 12<\/span>
\n       actually out of possession.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (3) A mere occupation of a larger portion, or even of an
\n      entire joint property does not necessarily amount to
\n      ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf
\n      of all.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (4) The above rule admits of an exception when there is
\n      ouster of a co-owner by another. But in order to negative
\n      the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all, on
\n      the ground of ouster, the possession of a co-owner must
\n      not only be exclusive but also hostile to the knowledge of
\n      the other as, when a co-owner openly asserts his own title
\n      and denies that of the other.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (5) Passage of time does not extinguish the right of the
\n      co-owner who has been out of possession of the joint
\n      property except in the event of ouster of abandonment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (6) Every co-owner has a right to use the joint property
\n      in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar
\n      rights of other co-owners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (7) Where a co-owner is in possession of separate
\n      parcels under an arrangement consented to by the other
\n      co-owners, it is not open to any body to disturb the
\n      arrangement without the consent of others except by
\n      filing a suit for partition.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
30.            The contention that the learned Trial Judge ought to<\/p>\n
have decided both suits i.e. the instant suit as also the suit filed<\/p>\n
by Jawahar Singh which is now being prosecuted by his sons,<\/p>\n
as noted above was urged in appeal and not before the learned<\/p>\n
Trial Judge.\n<\/p>\n
31.            No prejudice has been caused to either party and<\/p>\n
the question of any contradictory decisions does not arise. The<\/p>\n
reason is obvious.        Jawahar Singh who was not originally
\nRFA No.01\/95                                         Page 11 of 12<\/span>
\n impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiffs was<\/p>\n
subsequently impleaded as a defendant and his legal heirs<\/p>\n
were brought on record on his death. The children of Jawahar<\/p>\n
Singh would be bound by the impugned judgment and decree.<\/p>\n
We may note that the necessity of the second suit arose<\/p>\n
because Jawahar Singh was not impleaded as a defendant in<\/p>\n
the instant suit and he rightly thought as to how would he<\/p>\n
protect his interest.      In any case, the instant decree would<\/p>\n
operate as res judicata in the second suit.<\/p>\n
32.            The appeal is dismissed with costs in favour of the<\/p>\n
contesting respondents.\n<\/p>\n
33.            Trial Court Record be returned forthwith.<\/p>\n
                                     PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                     J.R. MIDHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
December 03, 2008
\ndk<\/p>\n
RFA No.01\/95                                          Page 12 of 12<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Shri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 2008 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment reserved on : November 18, 2008 % Judgment delivered on : December 03, 2008 + RFA 01\/1995 SHRI RAJBIR & ORS. ….. Appellants Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166666","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 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\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-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=\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-06T19:33:21+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-06T19:33:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2352,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Shri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-06T19:33:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 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":"Shri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 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\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-06T19:33:21+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-06T19:33:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008"},"wordCount":2352,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008","name":"Shri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-06T19:33:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rajbir-ors-vs-smt-padma-devi-ors-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Rajbir & Ors. vs Smt.Padma Devi & Ors. on 3 December, 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\/166666","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=166666"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166666\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166666"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}