{"id":176885,"date":"2009-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-02-20T04:44:03","modified_gmt":"2018-02-19T23:14:03","slug":"baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Baldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Baldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 2009<\/div>\n
RSA No.392     of 1991                                       1\n\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n                                     RSA No.392 of 1991\n                                     Date of Decision: 2.07.2009\n\n\n\nBaldev Singh                                           ..Appellant\n\n                         Vs.\n\nGurbachan Singh & Ors.                                 ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\nCoram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma\n\n\n\nPresent:   Mr.P.N.Aggarwal, Advocate,\n           for the appellant.\n\n           Mr.A.K.Khunger, Advocate,\n           for respondent No.1.\n\n           Mr.D.S.Rajput, Advocate,\n           for respondents No.2 and 3.\n\n                         ---\n\n      1.   Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may\n           be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n      2.     To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n\n      3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in\n             Digest?\n                        ---\n\nVinod K.Sharma,J.\n<\/pre>\n
           The plaintiff\/appellant by way of this regular second appeal
\n RSA No.392     of 1991                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
has challenged the judgment and decree dated 7.11.1990, passed by the<\/p>\n
learned courts below, vide which suit filed by the plaintiff\/appellant for<\/p>\n
declaration, to the effect that he is owner of land measuring 30 kanals 19<\/p>\n
marlas being half share of land measuring 61 kanals 17 marlas,           fully<\/p>\n
described in the head-note of the plaint situated at village Jhorayjand alias<\/p>\n
Chimney Wala Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore, on the basis of decree<\/p>\n
dated 17.12.1980 being son of Smt. Dhan Kaur daughter of Smt.Kishan<\/p>\n
Kaur widow of      Sunder Singh, and the will dated 27.11.1973 with a<\/p>\n
consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants<\/p>\n
from alienating the suit property, in any manner, to any person and for<\/p>\n
possession of the suit land has been ordered to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
            The plaintiff\/appellant brought a suit on the pleadings that<\/p>\n
Naranjan Singh son of Sunder Singh son of Ram Singh, maternal uncle of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff\/appellant was owner in possession of 122 kanals 15 marlas of<\/p>\n
land. Naranjan Singh executed a Will on 14.11.1973 in favour of<\/p>\n
Smt.Harnam Kaur, defendant No.4, and Smt.Kishan Kaur widow of Sunder<\/p>\n
Singh, maternal grand-mother of the plaintiff, which was duly registered. By<\/p>\n
way of Will dated 14.11.1973 Naranjan Singh bequeathed his entire land to<\/p>\n
Smt.Harnam Kaur and Smt.Kishan Kaur. However, on 27.11.1973<\/p>\n
Naranjan Singh in his full senses cancelled the Will dated 14.11.1973 and<\/p>\n
executed second Will bequeathing half share of the land measuring 122<\/p>\n
kanals 15 marlas to the plaintiff\/appellant, and the remaining half share was<\/p>\n
bequeathed to Smt.Harnam Kaur and Smt.Kishan Kaur, in equal share, as<\/p>\n
life estate. That under the Will they had no right to alienate any part of the
\n RSA No.392     of 1991                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
land, in any manner, during their life time. After the death of Naranjan<\/p>\n
Singh mutation No.770 was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector First<\/p>\n
Grade, Fazilka on the basis of Will dated 27.11.1973.<\/p>\n
            On appeal against the order filed by Smt.Kishan Kaur and<\/p>\n
Smt.Harnam Kaur the mutation case was remanded, and the mutation on<\/p>\n
the basis of registered Will dated 14.11.1973 was sanctioned on 31.12.1976.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff\/appellant filed a suit No.50 dated 15.11.1977 for declaration<\/p>\n
against Smt. Harnam Kaur etc. in the court of learned Sub Judge, Fazilka.<\/p>\n
The learned civil court was        pleased to grant ad-interim injunction<\/p>\n
restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
and from alienating the suit land, in any way, to any person.<\/p>\n
            The suit was contested by Smt.Kishan Kaur and Smt.Harnam<\/p>\n
Kaur, the ad-interim injunction was confirmed. Despite this Smt.Kishan<\/p>\n
Kaur alienated half share of land measuring 122 kanals 15 marlas, thereafter<\/p>\n
Smt.Harnam Kaur alienated remaining half share to defendants No.2 and 3.<\/p>\n
The suit was finally decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the<\/p>\n
defendants on 17.12.1980 and entire sale made by Smt.Kishan Kaur and<\/p>\n
Smt.Harnam Kaur was held illegal.\n<\/p>\n
            On the basis of the decree mutation No.920 was sanctioned in<\/p>\n
favour of the plaintiff with regard to the land measuring 16 kanals 18<\/p>\n
marlas, and the remaining half share was left as life estate of Smt.Harnam<\/p>\n
Kaur and Smt. Kishan Kaur as per Will dated 27.11.1973.<\/p>\n
            Smt.Kishan Kaur died leaving behind no legal heirs so the<\/p>\n
plaintiff being maternal grand-son, claimed himself to be the only legal
\n RSA No.392     of 1991                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
representative of Smt.Kishan Kaur and also on the basis of Will dated<\/p>\n
27.11.1973 and also as per as decree dated 17.12.1980 ownership qua the<\/p>\n
share of Smt.Kishan Kaur.\n<\/p>\n
            It was claimed that the defendants have no right or interest in<\/p>\n
the suit property. Defendants No.1 to 3 after the death of Kishan Kaur were<\/p>\n
said to be in illegal possession of the suit land. Defendants No.1 to 4<\/p>\n
preferred an appeal    which was dismissed on 7.9.1982 by the learned<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, Ferozepore. The plaintiff claimed that cause of<\/p>\n
action accrued to the plaintiff on 7.9.1982 when the appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n
            On notice defendants appeared and filed a separate written<\/p>\n
statement. A preliminary objection was taken by defendant No.1, that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit as he is neither legal<\/p>\n
heir nor successor-in-interest of late Kishan Kaur. The plaintiff was said to<\/p>\n
have, not derived any title or interest in the estate of Smt.Kishan Kaur who<\/p>\n
was absolute owner of the property in her hand. Defendant No.1 also set up<\/p>\n
a plea of bona fide purchaser vide sale deed dated 28.6.1978. It was<\/p>\n
further pleaded that defendant No.1 had no notice of defect in the title. It<\/p>\n
was claimed that the decree dated 17.12.1980 was nullity having been<\/p>\n
passed against a dead person without impleading legal heirs and successor-<\/p>\n
in-interest and thus, no right passed to the plaintiff on the basis of said<\/p>\n
decree.\n<\/p>\n
            The suit was said to be hit by provisions of Order II Rule 2 of<\/p>\n
the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code), and also that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit against the
\n RSA No.392     of 1991                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant-respondents. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was guilty of<\/p>\n
fabricating and forging an unregistered Will dated 27.11.1973 which was<\/p>\n
managed after the death of Naranjan Singh to swallow the property to<\/p>\n
deprive the true owner of their title in the estate of deceased. Smt.Kishan<\/p>\n
Kaur widow of Sunder Singh and mother of late Naranjan Singh who was<\/p>\n
absolute owner of property and was competent to alienate it in her life time.<\/p>\n
It was claimed that there was no clog on her right and as such the sale<\/p>\n
effected in favour of defendant No.1 was valid and perfect. Smt.Kishan<\/p>\n
Kaur was said to have succeeded to the estate of her son Naranjan Singh<\/p>\n
on the basis of valid Will dated 14.11.1973. The suit was stated to be not<\/p>\n
maintainable in the present form. It was also said to be bad for non-joinder<\/p>\n
of necessary parties i.e. Baldev Singh son of Rattan Singh. However,<\/p>\n
subsequently he was impleaded as a party. The suit was said to have been<\/p>\n
not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
            It was claimed that the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1980<\/p>\n
passed in suit titled Baldev Singh Vs. Smt.Harnam Kaur had been obtained<\/p>\n
by practising fraud on the court by suppression and concealment of true<\/p>\n
facts of the alleged Will dated 27.11.1973, which was forged one and not<\/p>\n
bearing the thumb impression of executant Naranjan Singh.<\/p>\n
            On merits similar pleas were taken to deny the facts pleaded by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff, and also by taking plea, that defendant No.1 and the plaintiff<\/p>\n
though is son of Smt. Dhan Kaur, but Smt.Dhan Kaur was not the daughter<\/p>\n
of Smt.Kishan Kaur but daughter of Smt.Bohli. So it was pleaded that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff\/appellant was not related to Smt.Kishan Kaur, in any way, for
\n RSA No.392          of 1991                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
inheritance.\n<\/p>\n
               Defendants No.2 and 3 filed separate written statement.<\/p>\n
However, their stand is not being         taken note of as the appellant\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
before the learned lower appellate court as well as before this court made a<\/p>\n
statement that no relief is claimed by the plaintiff against defendants No.2<\/p>\n
and 3.\n<\/p>\n
               Defendant No.5 Baldev Singh son of Rattan Singh took a plea<\/p>\n
that Smt.Krishan Kaur was the absolute owner of the suit land and that she<\/p>\n
inherited it from her son Naranjan Singh son of Sunder Singh by way of<\/p>\n
registered Will executed in her favour. Will set up by the plaintiff\/ appellant<\/p>\n
was said to be fictitious. Similar pleas were also taken by other defendants.<\/p>\n
               Separate replications were filed to the written statements filed<\/p>\n
by the defendants by denying pleas taken in the written statements and by<\/p>\n
reiterating the one taken in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
               On the pleadings of the parties learned trial court was pleased<\/p>\n
to frame the following issues:-\n<\/p>\n
               1.     Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land as alleged?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               2.     Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the<\/p>\n
                      present suit? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               3.     Whether the defendant No.1 is bona fide purchaser for<\/p>\n
                      value without notice of the disputed land? OPD-1<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               4.     Whether    decree    dated    17.12.1980    is   nullity   as<\/p>\n
                      alleged?OPD
\n RSA No.392    of 1991                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         5.     Whether the suit is barred under Order 11 Rule 2 CPC?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         6.     Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit<\/p>\n
                by his own act and conduct? OPD-1<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         7.     Whether Smt.Kishan Kaur succeeded to the estate of her<\/p>\n
                son Nirnajan Singh on the basis      of valid will dated<\/p>\n
                14.11.1973? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         8.     Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         9.     Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary<\/p>\n
                parties? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         10.    Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of<\/p>\n
                court fee and jurisdiction? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         11.    Whether the suit is time barred? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         12.    Whether the defendant No.1 is entitled to special costs<\/p>\n
                under section 35-A CPC? OPD-1<\/p>\n
         1-A    Whether deceased Smt.Kishan Kaur had executed a valid<\/p>\n
                will dated 1.3.1976 in favour of defendant No.5 Baldev<\/p>\n
                Singh? OPD-5<\/p>\n
         4-A    Whether judgment and decree dated 17.12.1980 Baldev<\/p>\n
                Singh Vs. Harnam Kaur has been obtained by fraud<\/p>\n
                practised on the court by the plaintiff by concealment of<\/p>\n
                true facts about the alleged will dated 27.11.1973 which<\/p>\n
                was forged one as alleged? OPD
\n RSA No.392     of 1991                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            13.    Relief.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The parties led evidence in support of their respective stands.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned trial court took up issues No.1, 3 to 7, 11 and 4-A<\/p>\n
together. Learned trial court took note of the previous litigation between the<\/p>\n
parties and noticed that Suit No.50       of 1977 titled Baldev Singh Vs.<\/p>\n
Smt.Harnam Kaur was filed on 15.1.1977 by the plaintiff\/appellant against<\/p>\n
Smt.Harnam Kaur and Smt. Kishan Kaur for declaration that he was owner<\/p>\n
in possession of half share of land measuring 122 kanals 15 marlas with a<\/p>\n
consequential relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from<\/p>\n
alienating the suit property, in any way, to any person.<\/p>\n
            Suit was subsequently amended vide application dated<\/p>\n
11.12.1978 and it was pleaded that Smt.Kishan Kaur expired about 5\/6 days<\/p>\n
prior to Dipawali day of 1978.\n<\/p>\n
            On 8.8.1978 another suit No.240 for declaration was filed by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff\/appellant by adding Gurbachan Singh as defendant No.3 to<\/p>\n
challenge the sale deed dated 28.6.1978 executed by Smt. Kishan Kaur<\/p>\n
being against the injunction order dated 14.3.1977. The sale was also said to<\/p>\n
be    fictitious and without consideration and not binding on the<\/p>\n
plaintiff\/appellant, but relief of possession was not claimed.<\/p>\n
            Learned trial court was pleased to consolidate both these suits.<\/p>\n
The learned Sub Judge by way of judgment and decree dated 17.12.1980<\/p>\n
decreed the suit. However, while decreeing the suit in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff\/appellant issue as to “Whether Gurbachan Singh is bona fide<\/p>\n
purchaser or not? If so its effect?, was not adjudicated though it was the
\n RSA No.392     of 1991                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
only issue framed in Suit No.50.\n<\/p>\n
             Another suit No.333 dated 23.7.1975 Ex.PW 2\/1 was filed by<\/p>\n
Smt.Harnam Kaur against Kishan Kaur and Baldev Singh for perpetual<\/p>\n
injunction restraining the defendants from disposing specific khasra No. of<\/p>\n
entire suit land measuring 122 kanals 15 marlas owned by Smt.Harnam<\/p>\n
Kaur having half share in the land along with defendant No.1 Smt.Kishan<\/p>\n
Kaur (in that suit) in which one half share of the defendant Baldev Singh<\/p>\n
son of Jarnail Singh resident of Village Bannawali (in that suit No.333) was<\/p>\n
admitted by pleading joint possession of the parties. However, the suit file<\/p>\n
or the judgment passed in the said suit was not placed on the file of this<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
             Plea of the plaintiff\/appellant that     once the Will dated<\/p>\n
27.11.1973 had been held valid and binding on the parties by the competent<\/p>\n
court of jurisdiction vide its judgment Ex.P.6 and thereafter affirmed by the<\/p>\n
learned lower appellate court vide judgment Ex.P.8, the defendants were not<\/p>\n
competent to reagitate the validity of the Will.\n<\/p>\n
             The learned trial court was pleased to hold that the proposition<\/p>\n
raised by the plaintiff\/appellant was applicable to both the parties. Learned<\/p>\n
trial court was pleased to observe that in the earlier suit the<\/p>\n
plaintiff\/appellant had knowledge about the alienation of the suit land by<\/p>\n
limited owner Smt. Kishan Kaur and Smt. Harnam Kaur to the defendants.<\/p>\n
He got the sale deed declared as illegal and not binding on the rights of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff from the court, but at the same time and if he has chosen to come<\/p>\n
to the court second time on a different cause of action, then the defendants
\n RSA No.392      of 1991                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
could certainly challenge the Will in question. The learned court also held<\/p>\n
that if the contention of the plaintiff\/appellant is taken into consideration<\/p>\n
that the suit property is not the same and that the parties are also not the<\/p>\n
same, and further that the rights of the parties are also different than his<\/p>\n
earlier suit. Then defendant No.1 can claimed himself to be bona fide<\/p>\n
purchaser without notice for consideration and in the present suit. Learned<\/p>\n
trial court was pleased to hold that defendants No.2, 3 and 5 were not<\/p>\n
parties to the earlier suit. It was also held that the suit property is same as it<\/p>\n
related to the inheritance and succession of the property of Naranjan Singh.<\/p>\n
It did not matter if the same was split into part by alienation made by<\/p>\n
Smt.Kishan Kaur and Smt.Harnam Kaur and the plaintiff\/appellant had<\/p>\n
claimed himself to be owner of the entire land left by Naranjan Singh<\/p>\n
except the half share given to two ladies as limited estate as per Will dated<\/p>\n
27.11.1973 under which Smt.Harnam Kaur had no right to alienate the<\/p>\n
same.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned trial court was pleased to hold that the plaintiff at the<\/p>\n
time of execution of sale deed had the knowledge so it was for him to have<\/p>\n
got decided the title of the entire estate left by Naranjan Singh in the earlier<\/p>\n
suit. The learned court further observed that in the earlier judgment Ex.P6,<\/p>\n
issue No.1 of Suit No.240 with regard to defendant Gurbachan Singh being<\/p>\n
bona fide purchaser without notice was not decided though an issue was<\/p>\n
struck on the pleadings of the parties, which would mean that plea of<\/p>\n
Gurbachan Singh being bona fide purchaser was accepted. The learned<\/p>\n
court also observed that the plaintiff\/appellant had not filed any appeal to
\n RSA No.392       of 1991                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
get his issue decided by the appellate court. The plaintiff\/appellant had<\/p>\n
claimed that cause of action arose to him on 7.9.1982 to file the present suit<\/p>\n
when the appeal of the defendant was dismissed vide judgment Ex.P.8.<\/p>\n
Learned trial court was pleased to hold that this plea has been raised to<\/p>\n
avoid period of limitation as the cause of action arose to the plaintiff on<\/p>\n
execution of the sale deeds Ex.P.1 and P.2 on 28.6.1978 and 21.2.1979.<\/p>\n
             Learned trial court, therefore, was pleased to hold that on the<\/p>\n
death of Smt.Kishan Kaur, plaintiff\/appellant he had two options either to<\/p>\n
file a fresh suit to get himself declared as owner of the suit property after<\/p>\n
the death of Smt. Kishan Kaur or get it amended by impleading legal heirs<\/p>\n
of Smt.Kishan Kaur.\n<\/p>\n
             Plaintiff\/appellant on the death of Smt.Kishan Kaur moved an<\/p>\n
application to    implead Baldev Singh plaintiff, Smt.Harnam Kaur           and<\/p>\n
Smt.Dhankaur legal representatives of Smt.Kishan Kaur. Said application<\/p>\n
was allowed. Therefore, it could not be said that right to sue was not in<\/p>\n
existence at the time of first suit. The plaintiff had also challenged the<\/p>\n
alienation in Suit No.240 by amending his plaint to get inheritance of<\/p>\n
Smt.Kishan Kaur       decided by the court along with inheritance            of<\/p>\n
S.Naranjan Singh between the parties. Learned trial court, therefore held<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff\/appellant could not file the present suit as per para No.9 of<\/p>\n
the plaint, copy of which is Ex.PW 5\/A, wherein it was pleaded that<\/p>\n
Smt.Kishan Kaur defendant had expired and that the defendants were her<\/p>\n
legal heirs. Learned trial court, therefore, was pleased to hold that it was for<\/p>\n
the plaintiff to have get decided succession and inheritance of Smt.Kishan
\n RSA No.392      of 1991                                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
Kaur in that suit itself when the suit was contested but the plaintiff waited<\/p>\n
for decision of the appellate court. The learned court also noticed that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff\/appellant had admitted defendant No.1 and other vendees of land<\/p>\n
owned by Smt.Kishan Kaur and Smt.Harnam Kaur true and genuine<\/p>\n
purchaser of the same. It was also within the knowledge of the plaintiff\/<\/p>\n
appellant that defendants were in possession of the property in dispute on<\/p>\n
the basis of alienation in question but he did not resort to any available<\/p>\n
remedy to him from which it could be inferred that the plaintiff\/appellant<\/p>\n
had no objection about the alienation of the suit land by Smt.Kishan Kaur<\/p>\n
and Smt.Harnam Kaur, even though they were held owners as per their<\/p>\n
share. The sale of the suit land by Smt.Kishan Kaur and Smt.Harnam Kaur<\/p>\n
was admitted by the plaintiff in the pleadings.       However, nothing was<\/p>\n
pleaded when he came to know about his alienation. Thus, presumption was<\/p>\n
drawn that the plaintiff\/appellant was in knowledge of the sale deeds when<\/p>\n
these were executed i.e. on 28.6.1978 and 21.2.1979, respectively. Thus, the<\/p>\n
learned trial court was pleased to hold that the cause of action accrued to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff\/appellant on the date of sale.\n<\/p>\n
             The learned court held that the suit for declaration was to be<\/p>\n
filed within a period of 3 years from October\/November, 1978 whereas the<\/p>\n
suit was filed only on 4.1.1985 and therefore, it was not within limitation. It<\/p>\n
was held that the plaintiff\/appellant was not entitled to declaration with a<\/p>\n
consequential relief of possession. Learned trial court placed reliance on<\/p>\n
the judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High            Court in the case of<\/p>\n
M.Thimma Raju and others Vs. Dronmaju Vankata Krishana Rao and
\n RSA No.392     of 1991                                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
others AIR 1978 Andhra Pradesh 385 to hold that the suit for possession<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff\/appellant would be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code<\/p>\n
of Civil Procedure (for short the Code). The learned trial court was further<\/p>\n
pleased to hold that the principle of res judicata was outside the region of<\/p>\n
fraud or collusion.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned trial court further held that if the suit filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was on the basis of right which was not in existence when the<\/p>\n
previous suit and that the suit land was different than that of previous suit<\/p>\n
then defendant\/respondents were entitled to challenge the validity of the<\/p>\n
Will in question.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned trial court was pleased to hold that validity of Will<\/p>\n
which stood upheld in the previous judgment could not be taken to be<\/p>\n
gospel truth, especially when the same was challenged being outcome of<\/p>\n
fraud played with the court. Learned trial court was further pleased to hold<\/p>\n
that validity of judgment and decree can be challenged under section 44 of<\/p>\n
the Indian Evidence Act being exception to Section 11 of the Code. Section<\/p>\n
44 of the Indian Evidence Act contains in built safe guards against orders<\/p>\n
obtained by fraud and collusion.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned trial court was further pleased to hold that the court<\/p>\n
could give independent finding as to whether the Will Ex.PW 4\/A is the<\/p>\n
outcome of collusion and fraud played on court by the plaintiff\/appellant.<\/p>\n
On appreciation of evidence thereafter concurrent finding has been recorded<\/p>\n
that the Will propounded by the plaintiff\/appellant was outcome of fraud<\/p>\n
and misrepresentation and therefore, was not a valid document. Learned
\n RSA No.392      of 1991                                         14<\/span><\/p>\n
trial court was pleased to observe that none of the attesting witnesses was<\/p>\n
examined to prove the Will even though one of the attesting witnesses was<\/p>\n
alive. The Will, therefore, was not proved as per provisions of Section 63 of<\/p>\n
the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.<\/p>\n
              Learned trial court was further pleased to hold that Ram Lal<\/p>\n
Madan examined by the plaintiff\/appellant also did not testify that the Will<\/p>\n
was thumb marked by the testator in the presence of the attesting witnesses<\/p>\n
Santa Singh and Major Singh. The learned court further held that specific<\/p>\n
foot note on the Will that the Will has been scribed on the identification of<\/p>\n
Sarpanch Major Singh, as attesting witness in the court compound by an<\/p>\n
Advocate in the office of Sub Registrar itself appears to be doubtful. That<\/p>\n
from perusal of note an inference could be drawn that the scribe wanted to<\/p>\n
exculpate from forgery of the Will       of a dead person by throwing the<\/p>\n
responsibility on Major Singh. Major Singh was said to be master mind of<\/p>\n
forgery.\n<\/p>\n
              Learned courts below also held that non-registration of the Will<\/p>\n
when the testator was in the court compound was also a serious suspicious<\/p>\n
circumstance as the earlier Will dated 14.11.1973 was registered Will. The<\/p>\n
learned court further noticed that Ram Lal Madan PW 4 avoided to affirm<\/p>\n
the Will. The Will was also found to be not scribed by regular deed writer,<\/p>\n
as the regular deed writer would not have prepared an antedated Will. The<\/p>\n
learned trial court further noticed that testator Naranjan Singh in usual<\/p>\n
course had been getting the documents scribed from Kanshi Ram regular<\/p>\n
deed writer     from whom he had got scribed Will Ex.DW8\/A dated
\n RSA No.392     of 1991                                         15<\/span><\/p>\n
14.11.1973. Even receipt Ex.D.3 with regard to the bearing expenses of sale<\/p>\n
was got scribed from Kanshi Ram deed writer in the year 1969.<\/p>\n
            Similarly, sale deed Ex.D.1 was also scribed by Kanshi Ram<\/p>\n
whose attesting witnesses was testator Naranjan Singh and therefore, there<\/p>\n
was no possibility of Naranjan Singh deviating from his usual practice.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the learned trial court was pleased to hold that the plaintiff\/<\/p>\n
appellant failed to explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding the<\/p>\n
Will.\n<\/p>\n
            On the other hand, defendants, in order to prove the Will to<\/p>\n
be forged one, examined an Expert who compared the signatures of<\/p>\n
Naranjan Singh on the disputed Will dated 27.11.1973 Ex.PW 4\/A with the<\/p>\n
thumb impression of Naranjan Singh on admitted Will dated 14.11.1973<\/p>\n
Ex.DW 8\/A. He had opined that the Will Ex.PW 4\/A did not bear the thumb<\/p>\n
impression of Naranjan Singh. Thus, the learned court found that the Will<\/p>\n
was forged document as testified by PW 9 Satwant Puri. Learned trial<\/p>\n
court, therefore, held that by producing a forged Will in the court the<\/p>\n
plaintiff\/appellant practised fraud with the court while obtaining judgment<\/p>\n
and decree Ex.P.6 as said fraud has been discovered in the case. Learned<\/p>\n
trial court, therefore, held that this Will was not binding on the defendants<\/p>\n
in the subsequent suit.\n<\/p>\n
            The plea of the plaintiff that there was admission made by<\/p>\n
Smt.Kishan Kaur      and Smt.Harnam Kaur regarding the execution of the<\/p>\n
Will in suit No.333 and reliance on the compromise Ex.DW 2\/A could be<\/p>\n
of no help as it could not be said to be voluntary. Learned trial court was
\n RSA No.392       of 1991                                        16<\/span><\/p>\n
pleased to hold that admission of forged document which created title<\/p>\n
would not be binding on the defendants. Learned trial court was further<\/p>\n
pleased to hold that admission made in exclusion of legal rights cannot be<\/p>\n
binding on the maker of such admission. Learned trial court further held<\/p>\n
that defendants were bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration<\/p>\n
without notice and further that the judgment and decree was nullity.<\/p>\n
Defendants No.1 to 3 were held entitled to retain possession of the land<\/p>\n
already in their possession and were further held entitled to possession of<\/p>\n
the land taken by the plaintiff in pursuance to the judgment and decree<\/p>\n
Exs.P.6 to P.9. The plaintiff\/appellant was directed to deliver possession of<\/p>\n
the land mentioned in the sale deeds Ex.P.2 and P.2 to defendants as they<\/p>\n
were held entitled to restitution of property.\n<\/p>\n
               In view of the findings recorded above, learned trial court was<\/p>\n
pleased to hold that the plaintiff\/appellant was not owner of the suit land<\/p>\n
and further that defendant No.1 was bona fide purchaser for valuable<\/p>\n
consideration without notice of the disputed, and that the decree dated<\/p>\n
17.12.1980 was obtained by practising fraud on the court as such it was<\/p>\n
nullity.\n<\/p>\n
               The suit was also held to be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the<\/p>\n
Code. Plea of estoppel was also decided against the plaintiff\/appellant. It<\/p>\n
was further held that Smt.Kishan Kaur and Smt.Harnam Kaur succeeded to<\/p>\n
the estate of her son and husband Nirnajan Singh, respectively, on the basis<\/p>\n
of the Will dated 14.11.1973, which was valid. The suit was ` held to be<\/p>\n
time barred.\n<\/p>\n
 RSA No.392       of 1991                                         17<\/span><\/p>\n
             Issues No.1, 3 to 7, 11 and 4-A were decided against the<\/p>\n
plaintiff\/appellant and in favour of the defendant\/respondent.<\/p>\n
             Issue No.2     was decided in favour of the plaintiff being not<\/p>\n
pressed.\n<\/p>\n
             Issue No.8 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff\/appellant,<\/p>\n
whereas issue No.9 was said to be redundant. Issue No.10 was decided in<\/p>\n
favour of the plaintiff having not been pressed.\n<\/p>\n
             Similarly, issue No.12 was also decided in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff\/appellant being not pressed. Issue No.1-A was said to have become<\/p>\n
redundant.\n<\/p>\n
             In view of the findings referred to above, suit filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff\/appellant for declaration with consequential relief of permanent<\/p>\n
injunction and possession was ordered to be dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n
             The judgment and decrees Ex.P.6 to P.9 were held to be nullity<\/p>\n
having been obtained by fraud. Defendants No.2 and 3 were held entitled to<\/p>\n
possession of the land mentioned in possession of plaintiff\/appellant as per<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, by way of restitution<\/p>\n
of possession.\n<\/p>\n
             Plaintiff\/appellant preferred an appeal.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned lower appellate court while affirming the findings of<\/p>\n
the learned trial court modified the findings qua the relief of restitution of<\/p>\n
possession of land measuring 60 kanals 18 marlas as relief was not claimed<\/p>\n
by way of counter claim. The concurrent findings of fact holding that will<\/p>\n
propounded by plaintiff\/appellant was forged document, has been
\n RSA No.392        of 1991                                        18<\/span><\/p>\n
challenged by Shri P.N.Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of<\/p>\n
the appellant on technical grounds by raising following substantial<\/p>\n
questions of law:-\n<\/p>\n
             1.      Whether it is well established that in order that fraud may<\/p>\n
                     be ground for vacating a judgment, it must be a fraud that<\/p>\n
                     is extrinsic or collateral to everything that has been<\/p>\n
                     adjudicated upon and not such as has been or must be<\/p>\n
                     deemed to have been dealt with by the court that passed<\/p>\n
                     the judgment sought to be vacated?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2.      Whether where the parties have the opportunity of<\/p>\n
                     putting their respective cause before the court and the<\/p>\n
                     court has come to a conclusion on the evidence, the rule<\/p>\n
                     of res judicata comes into operation, and it is not open to<\/p>\n
                     the defeated party to re-open      the matter by merely<\/p>\n
                     alleging that the evidence and the averments which the<\/p>\n
                     court believed, were untrue?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3.      Whether the matter in question is res judicata        under<\/p>\n
                     Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 44 of<\/p>\n
                     the Evidence Act is not applicable to the present case and<\/p>\n
                     the final and binding judgments and decrees already<\/p>\n
                     passed regarding the legality and validity of the will in<\/p>\n
                     question dated 27.11.1973 Ex.PW 4\/A cannot be ignored<\/p>\n
                     or considered null and void in the subsequent suit?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             4.      Whether the defendants are entitled in the present suit to
\n RSA No.392        of 1991                                       19<\/span><\/p>\n
                    question the legality and validity of the will dated<\/p>\n
                    27.11.1973 Ex.PW 4\/A already duly adjudicated upon<\/p>\n
                    and decided by the earlier judgments and decrees which<\/p>\n
                    are binding upon them in all respects.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             5.     Whether the judgments and decrees Ex.P.6 and P.7 of the<\/p>\n
                    learned Sub Judge Ist Class,Fazilka and the learned<\/p>\n
                    Additional District Judge Ferozepur Ex.P.8, which are<\/p>\n
                    between the same parties, regarding the same land in<\/p>\n
                    question, and based on the will dated 27.11.1973,<\/p>\n
                    amount to res judicata, and the legality and validity of<\/p>\n
                    the above will cannot be gone into afresh in the<\/p>\n
                    subsequent suit out of which the present appeal arises?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             6.     Whether the impugned judgments and decrees of the<\/p>\n
                    courts below are not vitiated as based on wrong<\/p>\n
                    premises and as the judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
                    17.12.1980 Ex.P.6 and P.7 were not obtained by any<\/p>\n
                    fraud practised on the court by the plaintiff\/appellant or<\/p>\n
                    by concealment of any true facts and alleged, especially<\/p>\n
                    when there is clear cut admission of Smt.Kishan Kaur<\/p>\n
                    and Smt.Harnam Kaur about the validity and due<\/p>\n
                    execution of the Will dated 27.11.1973 by Naranjan<\/p>\n
                    Singh, deceased, and the rights of the parties based upon<\/p>\n
                    this will, and in view of the compromise dated 8.5.1974<\/p>\n
                    Ex.PW 2\/B and the affidavit Ex.PW 3\/A?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 RSA No.392        of 1991                                       20<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             7.     Whether Smt.Kishan Kaur had only limited rights in the<\/p>\n
                    land in question by virtue of the will dated 27.11.1973<\/p>\n
                    Ex.PW 4\/A and she had no right of alienating it by sale,<\/p>\n
                    mortgage or in any other manner?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             8.     Whether the suit of the plaintiff\/appellant was within<\/p>\n
                    time as it was a suit based on title and the<\/p>\n
                    plaintiff\/appellant became entitled to possession of the<\/p>\n
                    land in question on the death of Smt.Kishan Kaur which<\/p>\n
                    occurred in October, 1978, and the suit of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
                    being based on title, under Article 65 of the Limitation<\/p>\n
                    Act, 1963, the period of limitation is 12 years when the<\/p>\n
                    possession of the defendants becomes adverse to the<\/p>\n
                    plaintiff, and the suit of the plaintiff appellant is also<\/p>\n
                    within time even from 7.9.1982 when the appeal of<\/p>\n
                    Gurbachan Singh and Harnam Kaur, the present<\/p>\n
                    respondents Nos.1 and 4, was dismissed by the learned<\/p>\n
                    Additional District Judge, Ferozepur?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             9.     Whether the defendant\/respondent No.1 can be termed as<\/p>\n
                    a bona fide vendee who had purchased the land in<\/p>\n
                    question with full knowledge of the limited rights of the<\/p>\n
                    vendor Smt.Kishan Kaur and issuance of temporary<\/p>\n
                    injunction by the Court prior to the purchase of the land<\/p>\n
                    by him?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             10.    Whether the suit of the plaintiff\/appellant is barred under
\n RSA No.392      of 1991                                        21<\/span><\/p>\n
                   Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in spitie<\/p>\n
                   of the fact that the right to possession of the land in<\/p>\n
                   question accrued to the plaintiff\/appellant on the death of<\/p>\n
                   Smt.Kishan Kaur in October, 1978 i.e. after the filing of<\/p>\n
                   the two suits Nos. 50 and 240?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In support of the substantial questions of law learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant vehemently contended that in the present case, plea of<\/p>\n
fraud and misrepresentation was not available to the parties.              As<\/p>\n
defendant\/respondents and their predecessors failed to lead any evidence<\/p>\n
in previous suit the Will was upheld. It was not open to the court in the<\/p>\n
subsequent suit to have gone into the question of validity of Will, on the<\/p>\n
ground that the decree was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The<\/p>\n
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was, that fraud could be<\/p>\n
a ground for holding the judgment to be nullity, if allegations of fraud are<\/p>\n
extrinsic or collateral to the adjudication, and not the one that has been or<\/p>\n
dealt with by the court in the previous suit.\n<\/p>\n
            In support of this contention learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Patna High Court in the<\/p>\n
case of Jangal Chaudhry Vs. Laljit Pasban and Ors. AIR 1921 Patna<\/p>\n
12, wherein Hon’ble Division Bench of Patna High Court was pleased to<\/p>\n
lay down, that although a decree can be set aside on the ground of fraud but<\/p>\n
if the question has already been agitated between the same parties and<\/p>\n
decided by a court of competent jurisdiction then the matter is res judicata<\/p>\n
and cannot be reopened again between the same parties in the subsequent
\n RSA No.392      of 1991                                        22<\/span><\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n
             Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Rangoon<\/p>\n
High Court in the case of K.E.Musthan Vs. Babu Mohendra Nath Singh<\/p>\n
AIR 1924 Rangoon 119,          wherein Hon’ble Rangoon High Court was<\/p>\n
pleased to lay down that the fraud necessary to set aside a decree upon the<\/p>\n
ground of fraud must be a fraud extraneous to everything adjudicated upon<\/p>\n
by the court and not any fraud already dealt with by the court. If fraud was<\/p>\n
not extraneous, the subsequent suit would not be maintainable.<\/p>\n
             Thereafter reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Bal Chanchal Vs.<\/p>\n
Ganpatram Jadavji and others AIR 1965 Gujarat 145, wherein Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Gujarat High Court was pleaded to lay down that where the decree or award<\/p>\n
is passed ex parte the allegations of leading of false evidence or tendering<\/p>\n
of forged documents cannot be said to be a fraud on court unless it is shown<\/p>\n
that the leading of that false evidence had the effect of preventing the<\/p>\n
plaintiff from putting his case before the court.\n<\/p>\n
             The contention of the learned counsel, therefore, was that in<\/p>\n
the present case Smt Kishan Kaur and Smt.Harnam Kuar had failed to<\/p>\n
contest the Will on the ground of Will being forged document and having<\/p>\n
failed, it was not open to defendant No.1 to raise said plea in the subsequent<\/p>\n
suit being successor-in-interest from said party.\n<\/p>\n
             Reliance was thereafter placed on the judgment of Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Madras High Court in the case of The Weavers Mills Ltd. Vs. Balkis<\/p>\n
Ammal and others AIR 1969 Madras 462, wherein Hon’ble Madras High
\n RSA No.392      of 1991                                        23<\/span><\/p>\n
Court has been pleased to lay down that a suit does not lie to set aside a<\/p>\n
judgment in a previous suit on the ground that it was obtained by perjured<\/p>\n
evidence. In order that fraud may be a ground for vacating a judgment, it<\/p>\n
must be a fraud that is extrinsic or collateral to every thing, that has been<\/p>\n
adjudicated upon not the one that has been or must be deemed to have been<\/p>\n
dealt with by the Court. Suppression of evidence and even negligent<\/p>\n
conduct in the prior litigation would not be proper ground for setting aside<\/p>\n
an earlier order.\n<\/p>\n
             Finally, reliance was placed on the judgment of Kerala High<\/p>\n
Court in the case of Keepattel Bappu alias Moidunni and others Vs.<\/p>\n
Mugharikutty’s son Kizhakke Valappil Muhammad and another AIR<\/p>\n
1993 Kerala 273, wherein Hon’ble Kerala High Court has been pleased to<\/p>\n
lay down that a ground of fraud for vacating the judgment relied upon has to<\/p>\n
be extraneous to everything adjudicated upon in the judgment relied upon.<\/p>\n
             The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant,<\/p>\n
therefore, is that the learned courts below committed an error in holding the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree obtained by the plaintiff\/appellant to be outcome of<\/p>\n
fraud and misrepresenttion and not binding upon the defendants. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant, therefore, contended that substantial questions of<\/p>\n
law Nos. 1 to 6 deserve to be decided in favour of the appellant and the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside.<\/p>\n
             Mr.A.K.Khungar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned<\/p>\n
courts below by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court
\n RSA No.392     of 1991                                      24<\/span><\/p>\n
in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath 1994 (2) CCC<\/p>\n
131, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
          ” “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal”<\/p>\n
          observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three<\/p>\n
          centuries ago.      It is the settled   proposition of law that<\/p>\n
          a      judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the<\/p>\n
          court is a nullity and    non est in    the eyes of law. Such a<\/p>\n
          judgment\/decree by       the first court or by the highest court<\/p>\n
          has to be treated as a nullity     by   every   court,   whether<\/p>\n
          superior or inferior.      It can be     challenged      in   any<\/p>\n
          court even in collateral proceedings.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Xx             xx        xx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          7.    The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The<\/p>\n
          short question before the High Court was whether in the facts<\/p>\n
          and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the<\/p>\n
          preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High<\/p>\n
          Court, however, went haywire and made observations which<\/p>\n
          are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court<\/p>\n
          that “there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to<\/p>\n
          court with a true case and prove it by true evidence” The<\/p>\n
          principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the<\/p>\n
          extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud<\/p>\n
          in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are
\n RSA No.392    of 1991                                           25<\/span><\/p>\n
         meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who<\/p>\n
         comes to the court, must come with clean hands.              We are<\/p>\n
         constrained to say that more often than not, process of the<\/p>\n
         court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-<\/p>\n
         loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from              all<\/p>\n
         walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to<\/p>\n
         retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation<\/p>\n
         to     say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood,<\/p>\n
         has no right to approach the court.       He can be summarily<\/p>\n
         thrown out at any stage of the litigation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         8. The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that<\/p>\n
         Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree        by playing fraud<\/p>\n
         on the         court. A fraud is an        act    of        deliberate<\/p>\n
         deception with the design of securing something by taking<\/p>\n
         unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain<\/p>\n
         by another’s loss.       It is a cheating intended to get an<\/p>\n
         advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal<\/p>\n
         Sowcar.             He purchased the property in the court auction<\/p>\n
         on behalf      of     Chunilal Sowcar.    He had, on his            own<\/p>\n
         volition, executed the registered release deed (Ex. B-15) in<\/p>\n
         favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute.<\/p>\n
         He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount<\/p>\n
         to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these<\/p>\n
         facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the
\n RSA No.392     of 1991                                         26<\/span><\/p>\n
            ground that he had purchased the property on his     own behalf<\/p>\n
            and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and<\/p>\n
            even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial            is<\/p>\n
            tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree<\/p>\n
            with the observations of the High Court that the appellants-<\/p>\n
            defendants    could have easily produced           the   certified<\/p>\n
            registered copy of Ex.    B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A<\/p>\n
            litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the<\/p>\n
            documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation.<\/p>\n
            If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on<\/p>\n
            the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the<\/p>\n
            court as well as on the opposite party.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in the case of Hamza Haji Vs. State of Kerala 2006 (4) Civil Court<\/p>\n
Cases 407, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that a<\/p>\n
decree or judgment obtained by playing fraud on court is a nullity and non<\/p>\n
est in the eye of law. If the case founded on false plea or on a claim which<\/p>\n
is known to be false and documents or transaction which have relevance in<\/p>\n
deciding claim are suppressed then it amounts to fraud. Said judgment and<\/p>\n
decree can be challenged even in collateral proceedings.<\/p>\n
            Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in the case of     Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki Vs. State of<\/p>\n
Gujarat 2008 (2) Law Herald (SC) 1223, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
was pleased to lay down that if an order is obtained by commission of fraud
\n RSA No.392      of 1991                                        27<\/span><\/p>\n
then even the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied<\/p>\n
with for setting aisle the same.\n<\/p>\n
             It was the final contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant that in exercise of powers under section 100 of the Code the<\/p>\n
concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below      holding<\/p>\n
the Will be to forged and fictitious document are not open to challenge by<\/p>\n
re-appreciating the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
             In order to appreciate the controversy raised it is pertinent to<\/p>\n
notice here that the plaintiff\/appellant gave up challenge to the sale deed<\/p>\n
Ex.P.2 dated 21.2.1979 executed by Smt.Harnam Kaur in favour of<\/p>\n
defendants No.2 and 3 and the suit qua defendants No.2 and 3 was ordered<\/p>\n
to be dismissed. Challenge therefore, was only made to the sale deed made<\/p>\n
by Smt.Kishan Kaur by claiming that the plaintiff\/ appellant had become<\/p>\n
owner on the basis of Will dated 27.11.1973 qua the share of Kishan Kaur.<\/p>\n
             Learned courts below decided the question raised by holding<\/p>\n
that the plea of res judicata was not applicable in case of a fraud by<\/p>\n
invoking provisions of section 44 of the Evidence Act. Findings of the<\/p>\n
learned courts below holding that the Will was not valid, therefore, cannot<\/p>\n
be sustained, as the plea that the Will was not validly executed was<\/p>\n
available to the defendants in the previous suit, where it was upheld and has<\/p>\n
attained finality. Therefore, the substantial questions of law referred to<\/p>\n
above are decided in favour of the appellants. It is held that it was not open<\/p>\n
to the defendant\/respondents to challenge the Will dated 27.11.1972.<\/p>\n
             In the subsequent suit, as fraud pleaded was not intrinsic or
\n RSA No.392      of 1991                                        28<\/span><\/p>\n
collateral to the point adjudicated. The judgments of Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court    relied upon by the defendant\/respondents        are, therefore, not<\/p>\n
applicable. It is also pertinent to mention here that the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant had also placed reliance on the following        judgments of<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of:-\n<\/p>\n
              1.     State of Utta Pradesh Vs. Nawab Hussain AIR 1977<\/p>\n
              SC 1680;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              2.     Kumaraswami          Gounder     and     others     Vs.\n\n              D.R.Nanjappa Gounder (dead) and others AIR 1978\n\n              Madras 285;\n\n              3.     Mahalingeshwara       Devaru     and    another     Vs.\n\n              Seetharama Bhatta and Anr.;\n\n              4.     AIR 1978 Karnataka 213, Amarendra Komalam &\n\n              Anr. Vs. Usha Sinha & Anr. 2005 (3) CCC 228; and\n\n              5.     Mangal Das & Ors. Vs. Johri Son of Mohar Singh\n\n              2006 (3) CCC 273;\n\nto contend that issue of fact     once determined finally by the court of\n\n<\/pre>\n
competent jurisdiction, when comes directly in question in subsequent<\/p>\n
proceedings between the same parties, then the persons cannot be allowed to<\/p>\n
raise the same question which stood determined earlier by the competent<\/p>\n
court. Thus, it is to be held that plea to challenge the Will was barred on<\/p>\n
principle of res judicata.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             On substantial question No.10, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant vehemently contended that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff\/
\n RSA No.392     of 1991                                         29<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant was for declaration, that the sale deed dated 28.6.1978 executed<\/p>\n
by Smt.Kishan Kaur, in spite of temporary injunction by the civil court in<\/p>\n
pending suit and therefore, was null and void and had no effect on the<\/p>\n
rights of the plaintiff whereas subsequent suit was       for possession on<\/p>\n
account of death of Smt.Kishan Kaur the limited owner, and further to<\/p>\n
restrain the vendees\/defendants from alienating the suit land further in any<\/p>\n
manner. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that as<\/p>\n
the subsequent suit was based on separate cause of action, therefore, was<\/p>\n
not barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. The findings recorded by the<\/p>\n
learned courts below, therefore, cannot be sustained. In support of this<\/p>\n
contention learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment<\/p>\n
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Marwari Kumhar and others Vs.<\/p>\n
Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri and Anr. (2000) 6 SCC 735, wherein<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that where in earlier suit for<\/p>\n
declaration relief of possession has not been claimed suit for possession was<\/p>\n
not barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. However, reading of the<\/p>\n
judgment shows that the suit was held to be not barred under Order 2 Rule<\/p>\n
2 of the Code on facts of that case, and it has not been laid down as a<\/p>\n
precedent, that in all suits for declaration if relief of possession is not<\/p>\n
claimed second suit would be competent. The plea raised is prima facie<\/p>\n
contrary to the provisions of section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, which<\/p>\n
provides that mere suit for declaration would not be competent when<\/p>\n
consequential relief of possession is available.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant, thereafter, placed reliance on
\n RSA No.392      of 1991                                         30<\/span><\/p>\n
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunjan Nair<\/p>\n
Sivaraman Nair Vs. Narayanan Nair and others (2004) 3 Supreme<\/p>\n
Court Cases 277 to contend that suit filed by the plaintiff\/appellant was<\/p>\n
not barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. However, this judgment again<\/p>\n
was on peculiar facts of the case. Rather the Hon’ble Supreme Court was<\/p>\n
pleased to lay down as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            ”     Order 2 concerns framing of a suit and lays down the<\/p>\n
            general principle that the plaintiff shall include whole of his<\/p>\n
            claim in the framing of the suit which the plaintiff is entitled to<\/p>\n
            make in respect of a cause of action; and if he does not do so<\/p>\n
            then he is visited with the consequences indicated therein. In<\/p>\n
            other words, it provides that all reliefs arising out of the same<\/p>\n
            cause of action shall be set out in one and the same suit, and<\/p>\n
            further prescribes the consequences if the plaintiff\/respondent<\/p>\n
            omits to do so. Order 2 Rule 2 centres round one and the same<\/p>\n
            cause of action. The salutary principle behind Order 2 Rule 2<\/p>\n
            is that a defendant or defendants should not be vexed time and<\/p>\n
            again for the same cause by splitting the claim and the reliefs<\/p>\n
            for   being   indicated    in   successive    litigation.   It   is,<\/p>\n
            therefore,provided that the plaintiff-respondent         must not<\/p>\n
            abandon any part of the claim without the leave of the court and<\/p>\n
            must claim the whole relief or entire bundle of reliefs available<\/p>\n
            to him in respect of that very same cause of action. Otherwise,<\/p>\n
            he will thereafter be precluded from so doing in any subsequent
\n RSA No.392    of 1991                                         31<\/span><\/p>\n
           litigation that he may commence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 So far as Order 2 Rule 2 (3) is concerned, before the<\/p>\n
           second suit of the plaintiff\/respondent can be held to be barred<\/p>\n
           by the same, it must be shown that the second suit is based on<\/p>\n
           the same, that is identical, cause of action on which the earlier<\/p>\n
           suit was based.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The illustrations given under the rule clearly bring out this<\/p>\n
           position. If the cause of action is the same in both the suits and<\/p>\n
           if in the earlier suit the plaintiff\/respondent had not sued for<\/p>\n
           any of the reliefs available to it on the basis of that cause of<\/p>\n
           action, the reliefs which it had omitted to press into service,<\/p>\n
           except with the leave of the court, in that suit cannot be<\/p>\n
           subsequently prayed for. The rule is directed to securing the<\/p>\n
           exhaustion of the relief in respect of a cause of action and not<\/p>\n
           to the inclusion in one and the same action of different causes<\/p>\n
           of action, even though they arise from the same transaction.<\/p>\n
           One great criterion, when the question arises as to whether the<\/p>\n
           cause of action in the subsequent suit is identical with that in<\/p>\n
           the first suit, is whether the same evidence will maintain both<\/p>\n
           actions.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Reading of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court shows that<\/p>\n
when a relief is available to a party in a previous suit and same is not<\/p>\n
claimed then the subsequent suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the<\/p>\n
Code.\n<\/p>\n
 RSA No.392      of 1991                                         32<\/span><\/p>\n
             In the present case it may be noticed that the plaintiff\/appellant<\/p>\n
has based his claim on the basis of Will said to have been executed in his<\/p>\n
favour and that admittedly the sale deed was executed by Smt.Kishan Kaur,<\/p>\n
therefore, the plaintiff\/appellant had a right to seek possession by<\/p>\n
challenging the alienation made by Smt.Kishan Kaur. The judgment relied<\/p>\n
upon by the learned counsel of the appellant, therefore, does not advance<\/p>\n
the case of the plaintiff\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
             Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan<\/p>\n
High Court in the case of Nand Kishore and another Vs. Prabhu Narain<\/p>\n
and others AIR 1976 Rajasthan 20 to contend that subsequent suit for<\/p>\n
possession after declaration of ownership is not barred by Order 2 Rule 2<\/p>\n
of the Code being based on new cause of action.\n<\/p>\n
             This judgment again is of no help to the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant as admittedly the plaintiff\/appellant had challenged the sale after<\/p>\n
the death of Smt.Kishan Kaur, therefore, the cause of action to claim<\/p>\n
possession along with declaration was available to the plaintiff\/appellant<\/p>\n
while impleading defendant No.1 as party to the suit being the vendee<\/p>\n
through Smt.Kishan Kaur. Furthermore, the provisions of Order 2 Rule 63<\/p>\n
stand omitted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act, 1976,<\/p>\n
hence no benefit can be drawn by the appellant from this judgment also.<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the appellant, thereafter placed reliance on<\/p>\n
the judgment of Hon’ble Mysore High Court in the case of B.Shambumal<\/p>\n
Gangaram and another Vs. The State Bank of Mysore, AIR 1971<\/p>\n
Mysore 156 to contend that plea under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code is
\n RSA No.392       of 1991                                         33<\/span><\/p>\n
liable to fail when there is no identity of causes of action in prior and<\/p>\n
subsequent suit.\n<\/p>\n
            It may be mentioned here again that in the present case learned<\/p>\n
courts below have rightly held that there was identity of cause of action as<\/p>\n
the basis of relief claimed in both the cases is the Will executed in his<\/p>\n
favour, which though was a forged and fabricated document but has been<\/p>\n
upheld on technical ground of res judicata, because of finding in the<\/p>\n
previous litigation between the parties. It is also pertinent to mention here<\/p>\n
that the learned courts below rightly relied upon the full Bench judgment of<\/p>\n
Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M.Thimma Raju and others<\/p>\n
Vs. Dronmaju Venkata Krishana Rao and others                 (supra), wherein<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court was pleased to lay down as under:-<\/p>\n
             ”     In a suit for partition and separate possession some lands<\/p>\n
             were sold during the pendency of the suit, the plaint was<\/p>\n
             amended bringing the purchasers on record, their purchases<\/p>\n
             were impeached and decree was sought against them. Since no<\/p>\n
             court fee was paid for the relief of possession, it was not<\/p>\n
             granted. Held     a second suit against the purchasers for<\/p>\n
             possession being one between the same parties and on the same<\/p>\n
             cause of action was held barred by Order 11 Rule 2 CPC. Held<\/p>\n
             further, relief of possession which could have been sought in<\/p>\n
             the previous suit not having been sought, the second suit for<\/p>\n
             relief was also barred by the principle of res judicata.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            This judgment is based on the law laid down by Hon’ble
\n RSA No.392     of 1991                                          34<\/span><\/p>\n
Supreme Court in AIR 1964 SC 1810 and AIR 1961 SC 1418.\n<\/p>\n
            No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the learned<\/p>\n
courts below holding that subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff\/appellant<\/p>\n
was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code. The substantial question of<\/p>\n
law No.10 is decided against the appellant and in favour of the<\/p>\n
defendant\/respondents.\n<\/p>\n
            On 8th substantial question of law, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant vehemently contended that the findings recorded by the learned<\/p>\n
courts below holding      the suit   to be barred by limitation cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained, as the suit filed by the plaintiff\/appellant was based on title, and<\/p>\n
that the appellant became entitled to possession of the suit land, on the<\/p>\n
death of Smt.Kishan Kaur which occurred in October, 1978. It was<\/p>\n
contended that limitation for seeking possession was 12 years and that the<\/p>\n
learned courts below wrongly held it to be barred by limitation.<\/p>\n
            This contention     is liable to be rejected on more than one<\/p>\n
grounds. In order to make out a cause of action to file suit, learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant has taken the date to be the date of dismissal of appeal,<\/p>\n
whereas for the purpose of possession it was contended that cause of action<\/p>\n
accrued to the plaintiff\/appellant in October, 1970. Question of law raised<\/p>\n
itself supports the findings recorded by the learned courts below upholding<\/p>\n
that the suit filed by the plaintiff\/appellant was barred under Order 2 Rule 2<\/p>\n
of the Code as the cause of action to seek possession has accrued to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff during the pendency of previous suit. The subsequent vendee i.e.<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 was impleaded as party in the previous suit, being necessary
\n RSA No.392       of 1991                                        35<\/span><\/p>\n
party, but relief of possession was not claimed.\n<\/p>\n
             Furthermore, the frame of the suit itself would show that it was<\/p>\n
not a suit for possession, but for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was owner of the land measuring 30 kanals 19 marlas being half share of<\/p>\n
the land measuring 61 kanals 17 marlas fully described in head note of the<\/p>\n
plaint being son of Smt.Dhan Kaur daughter of Kishan Kaur widow of<\/p>\n
Sunder Singh and on the basis of Will dated 27.11.1973 with consequential<\/p>\n
relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the<\/p>\n
suit land, in any manner, to any person and for possession of the suit land.<\/p>\n
             Thus, it would be seen that the possession was claimed as a<\/p>\n
consequential relief to the decree for declaration and therefore, the learned<\/p>\n
courts below rightly held the suit to be barred by limitation. The substantial<\/p>\n
question No.8 is also answered against the appellant.<\/p>\n
             No arguments were addressed on substantial question No.7. In<\/p>\n
view of the findings recorded above, this question of law raised is rendered<\/p>\n
redundant and does not arise for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
             On substantial question of law No. 9, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant contended that the learned courts below committed an error in<\/p>\n
holding defendant No.1 to be bona fide vendee, who purchased the land in<\/p>\n
question with full knowledge of limited right from the vendor Smt.Kishan<\/p>\n
Kaur and issuance of temporary injunction by the court prior to purchase by<\/p>\n
the suit land.\n<\/p>\n
             This plea of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted as by his own act and conduct the plaintiff\/appellant allowed
\n RSA No.392      of 1991                                            36<\/span><\/p>\n
Smt.Kishan Kaur to be represented as ostensible owner, by not seeking<\/p>\n
possession from defendant No.1; rather the plaintiff\/appellant remained<\/p>\n
silent when possession was taken and thereafter also he did not take any<\/p>\n
step to seek possession for more than 3 years by seeking declaration.<\/p>\n
Learned courts below, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 was bona fide purchaser for consideration. The substantial<\/p>\n
question of law No.9 raised is also answered against the appellant\/plaintiff.<\/p>\n
              In view of answers to the substantial questions of law raised,<\/p>\n
the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned<\/p>\n
lower appellate court is affirmed but with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
 2 .07.2009                                        (Vinod K.Sharma)\nrp                                                      Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Baldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 2009 RSA No.392 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.392 of 1991 Date of Decision: 2.07.2009 Baldev Singh ..Appellant Vs. Gurbachan Singh & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.P.N.Aggarwal, Advocate, […]<\/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-176885","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBaldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-19T23:14:03+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=\"45 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-19T23:14:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":8958,\"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\\\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Baldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-19T23:14:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 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":"Baldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-19T23:14:03+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":"45 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-19T23:14:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009"},"wordCount":8958,"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\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009","name":"Baldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-19T23:14:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baldev-singh-vs-gurbachan-singh-ors-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baldev Singh vs Gurbachan Singh & Ors on 2 July, 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\/176885","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=176885"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176885\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176885"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176885"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176885"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}