{"id":180561,"date":"2009-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-24T13:49:53","modified_gmt":"2017-10-24T08:19:53","slug":"karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Karamjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Karamjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2009 (O&M)                                      1\n\n\n\n        In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                          R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2009 (O&M)\n                          Date of decision: 26.11. 2009\n\n\n\nKaramjit Singh\n                                                        ......Appellant\n\n                           Versus\n\n\nJoginder Singh and others\n\n                                                     .......Respondents\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:     Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate,\n             for the appellant.\n\n                  ****\n\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             Plaintiff Karamjit Singh filed a suit for possession by way<\/p>\n
of specific performance of agreement          to sell dated 29.12.1995,<\/p>\n
which was partly decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Jagadhari<\/p>\n
vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2005. In appeal, filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, the said judgment and decree          were     upheld by the<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide judgment<\/p>\n
and decree dated         19.1.2009.   Hence, the present appeal by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
 R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2009 (O&M)                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
           Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate<\/p>\n
Court in para Nos. 2 to 5 of its judgment, are as under:-<\/p>\n
           “2.         The appellant\/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
           as the plaintiff) brought a suit for possession by way of<\/p>\n
           specific performance with material averments that vide<\/p>\n
           agreement to sell dated 29.12.95, defendant no.1 owner<\/p>\n
           of the suit land (as detailed in head note of the plaint)<\/p>\n
           agreed to sell his 1\/3 share i.e. 36K-10M for total sale<\/p>\n
           consideration of Rs.3,20,000\/- and received Rs. One lakh<\/p>\n
           as earnest money under the agreement to sell vide<\/p>\n
           receipt of even date. The date fixed for execution and<\/p>\n
           registration of sale deed was 20.7.1996.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           3.    The plaintiff further averred that respondent no.1<\/p>\n
           disclosed to him at the time of execution of the agreement<\/p>\n
           to sell that the land is under mortgage with defendants<\/p>\n
           no.2 to 5 and he would get the land redeemed before<\/p>\n
           execution and registration of sale deed, in case he fails to<\/p>\n
           redeem the land before stipulated date, he would leave<\/p>\n
           the mortgage amount with the plaintiff. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
           averred that the agreement to sell contains usual terms<\/p>\n
           and conditions as regard to the penal clause of forfeiture<\/p>\n
           of earnest money and payment of double amount and<\/p>\n
           enforcement of specific performance of agreement to sell<\/p>\n
           in case of default of either of the party.
\n R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2009 (O&M)                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 4.       The plaintiff further averred that he<\/p>\n
                 disclosed the agreement to sell to defendants<\/p>\n
                 no.2 to 4 by visiting their village Lalheri Kalan in<\/p>\n
                 the first week of February, 1996 and also showed<\/p>\n
                 them the agreement to sell which was read by<\/p>\n
                 defendants no.2 to 4 and also enquired about if<\/p>\n
                 defendant     no.1   had   approached    them    for<\/p>\n
                 redeeming the land and assured them that the<\/p>\n
                 land would be soon redeemed. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
                 further pleaded that defendant no.1 did not fulfill<\/p>\n
                 his obligation under the contract and he did not<\/p>\n
                 appear before the Sub-Registrar Chhachhrauli on<\/p>\n
                 due date as agreed upon between the parties for<\/p>\n
                 execution and registration of the sale deed. He<\/p>\n
                 marked his presence in the office of Sub<\/p>\n
                 Registrar on 19.7.1996 already with the money as<\/p>\n
                 20.7.1996 was Saturday, a holiday. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
                 stated that he has always been willing to perform<\/p>\n
                 his part to contract and also met the defendant<\/p>\n
                 no.1 in first week of February, 1996 and tendered<\/p>\n
                 the entire balance sale consideration and the<\/p>\n
                 amount for purchased of the stamp papers and<\/p>\n
                 other miscellaneous expenses for execution and<\/p>\n
                 registration of the sale deed but defendant no.1
\n R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2009 (O&M)                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
                 put off the matter by pleading that the time fixed<\/p>\n
                 for execution and registration of the sale deed is<\/p>\n
                 quite for away and that the land has not been<\/p>\n
                 redeemed by him so far. The plaintiff further<\/p>\n
                 pleaded that on 20.7.96 he approached the<\/p>\n
                 defendant no.1 and asked him to fulfill his part of<\/p>\n
                 contract but he was astonished to know that<\/p>\n
                 defendant no.1 had secretly sold the entire land<\/p>\n
                 alongwith other land to defendants no.2 to 4 by<\/p>\n
                 means of two sale deed dated 15.2.96 and<\/p>\n
                 25.6.96.   The    plaintiff   further   pleaded    that<\/p>\n
                 defendants no.2 to 4 have sold the land to<\/p>\n
                 defendant no.6 vide sale deed dated 4.9.96 in<\/p>\n
                 order to defeat his right in the suit land. The<\/p>\n
                 plaintiff stated that he was is still ready and willing<\/p>\n
                 to perform his part of contract and pleaded that<\/p>\n
                 defendants be asked to honour the agreement to<\/p>\n
                 sell. He also challenged the sale deeds in<\/p>\n
                 question as illegal, null and void and not binding<\/p>\n
                 upon his rights. He stated that the defendants<\/p>\n
                 have knowledge of the agreement to sell in<\/p>\n
                 question and thus, prayed that he be granted a<\/p>\n
                 decree for possession of the suit land by specific<\/p>\n
                 performance of the agreement to sell dated
\n R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2009 (O&M)                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
                    29.12.95, as prayed for by him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    5.       The respondents\/defendants no.1 & 5<\/p>\n
                    (hereinafter referred to as the defendants no.1 &<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    5) did not contest the suit and were preceded<\/p>\n
                    against exparte.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               6.            Respondents\/defendants No.2 and 4<\/span><\/p>\n
                    (hereinafter referred to as defendants No.2 & 4)<\/p>\n
                    filed their joint written statement and resisted the<\/p>\n
                    suit of the plaintiff by taking preliminary objections<\/p>\n
                    interalia as to the maintainability of the suit being<\/p>\n
                    bad on account of mis-joinder of necessary<\/p>\n
                    parties and that the defendants are bonafide<\/p>\n
                    purchasers    of   the   suit   land   for   valuable<\/p>\n
                    consideration and are being protected by law.<\/p>\n
                    The plaintiff is estopped from filing the present<\/p>\n
                    suit by his own act and conduct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    On merits, the defendants denied the execution of<\/p>\n
                    the agreement to sell dated 29.12.95 between the<\/p>\n
                    plaintiff and defendant no.1 and pleaded that the<\/p>\n
                    agreement in question is forged document, which<\/p>\n
                    has been prepared in collusion with the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
                    and defendant no.1 being close relative and as<\/p>\n
                    such not binding upon their rights. However, they<\/p>\n
                    admitted that the suit land was under mortgage
\n R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2009 (O&M)                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
                 for Rs.1,99,000\/- with them. They pleaded that<\/p>\n
                 the plaintiff actively participated in the execution<\/p>\n
                 of the sale deed regarding the suit land, which<\/p>\n
                 has been executed by defendant no.1 in their<\/p>\n
                 favour for valuable consideration. They pleaded<\/p>\n
                 that the sale deeds dated 15.2.96 and 25.6.96<\/p>\n
                 executed in their favour by defendant no.1 are<\/p>\n
                 valid and binding upon the plaintiff. They also<\/p>\n
                 admitted that they sold the land to defendant no.6<\/p>\n
                 as they had every right to sell the same being<\/p>\n
                 bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration.<\/p>\n
                 With these broads averments, they pleaded to<\/p>\n
                 dismiss the suit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 7.       Respondent\/defendant no.6 (hereinafter<\/p>\n
                 referred to as defendant no.6) filed a separate<\/p>\n
                 written statement and pleaded that he purchased<\/p>\n
                 the suit land from defendants no.2 to 4 for<\/p>\n
                 valuable consideration and as such has become<\/p>\n
                 rightful owner of the land in question, being<\/p>\n
                 bonafide purchaser. All the facts mentioned in the<\/p>\n
                 plaint were denied for want of knowledge and<\/p>\n
                 pleaded that the plaintiff has not come in the<\/p>\n
                 court with clean hands and as such has no locus<\/p>\n
                 standi to file the present suit. With the aforesaid
\n R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2009 (O&M)                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
                        broad averments, he pleaded to dismiss the suit<\/p>\n
                        of the plaintiff.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    On the pleadings of the parties, following issues<\/p>\n
were framed by the trial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
                   1.       Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession<\/p>\n
                   of the suit land by way of specific performance of<\/p>\n
                   agreement dated 29.12.95 as prayed for ? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   2.       Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   3.       Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of<\/p>\n
                   necessary parties?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   4.       Whether          the   defendants   are   bonafide<\/p>\n
                   purchaser of the suit land for valuable consideration,<\/p>\n
                   if so its effect ? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   5.       Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the<\/p>\n
                   present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              6.            Whether the agreement dated 29.12.95 is<\/p>\n
                   forged document? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              7.            Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of<\/p>\n
the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
           Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of<\/p>\n
agreement to sell dated 29.12.1995.                  The Courts below have<\/p>\n
decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of double the<\/p>\n
earnest money. The relief for specific performance of agreement to
\n R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2009 (O&M)                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
sell was declined on the ground that defendants No. 2 to 5 were<\/p>\n
bona fide purchasers for consideration.       The point in issue for<\/p>\n
consideration in the present appeal is only to the limited extent as to<\/p>\n
whether defendants No.2 to 6 were bona fide purchasers in<\/p>\n
consideration. Although DW-1 Vinod Kumar had not appeared for<\/p>\n
cross-examination but in a suit filed by defendant No.1 against<\/p>\n
defendant Nos. 2 to 4, defendant No.1 had challenged the sale<\/p>\n
deeds executed by him in favour of defendants No.2 to 4.            The<\/p>\n
property in question was already mortgaged with defendants No.2 to<\/p>\n
5 for a sum of Rs.1,99,000\/- vide mortgage deed dated 18.8.1994.<\/p>\n
The possession of the suit property was already with the said<\/p>\n
defendants. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held<\/p>\n
that the defendants, who were already in possession of the suit<\/p>\n
property as mortgagees, had no notice of the agreement to sell<\/p>\n
executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
consequently, they were bona fide purchasers for consideration.<\/p>\n
           No substantial question of law arises in this regular<\/p>\n
second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                               (SABINA)
\n                                                JUDGE
\nNovember 26, 2009
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Karamjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 2009 R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1228 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.11. 2009 Karamjit Singh ……Appellant Versus Joginder Singh and others …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKaramjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 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\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karamjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-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=\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-24T08:19:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karamjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-24T08:19:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1450,\"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\\\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Karamjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-24T08:19:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karamjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 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":"Karamjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 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\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karamjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-24T08:19:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karamjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-24T08:19:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009"},"wordCount":1450,"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\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009","name":"Karamjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-24T08:19:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamjit-singh-vs-joginder-singh-and-others-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karamjit Singh vs Joginder Singh And Others on 26 November, 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\/180561","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=180561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180561\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}