{"id":188944,"date":"2008-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008"},"modified":"2019-04-09T03:42:19","modified_gmt":"2019-04-08T22:12:19","slug":"mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Mangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008<\/div>\n
R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984                                  [1]\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                   AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n(1)                               R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984\n                                  Date of decision: September 05, 2008\n\nMangtu deceased through L.Rs.\n                                                               .. Appellants.\n                v.\n\nThan Singh deceased through L.Rs. and others\n                                                               .. Respondents.<\/pre>\n
(2)                               R.F.A. No. 2125 of 1984\n\nSumera and others\n                                                               .. Appellants.\n           v.\n<\/pre>\n
Than Singh deceased through L.Rs. and others
\n                                                               .. Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL<\/p>\n
Present: Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
             Mr. M. S. Khaira, Senior Advocate with
\n             Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
Rajesh Bindal J.\n<\/p>\n
                This order will dispose of the above mentioned two appeals, as
\nthe same arise out of common order of learned Additional District Judge
\n(II), Narnaul. However, the facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 2125
\nof 1984.\n<\/p>\n
                The appellants are before this Court aggrieved against the order
\npassed by the learned Court below in proceedings under Section 30 of the
\nLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act’), whereby apportionment of
\nthe compensation is in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
                Briefly, the facts are that in April, 1979, the State of Haryana
\nacquired 69.69 acres of land in Village Mukandpur Bassai, Tehsil Rewari,
\nDistrict Mahendergarh for the purpose of construction of left embankment
\nof Massani Barrage by the the Irrigation Department. As per the statement
\non Form 19, prepared by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the
\nCollector’), the particulars of the owners of the land acquired to whom the
\n R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984                                [2]<\/p>\n
compensation was to be granted were available. The dispute arose before
\nthe Collector at the time of disbursement thereof when Nain Sukh and
\nothers, residents of Village Mukandpur Bassai, claimed entire compensation
\namount including the compensation assessed qua the shares of Ram Sarup
\nand Kanhiya sons of Nandan son of Tota Ram, who had been recorded as
\nowners to the extent of 1\/3rd share as gair bazran. It is the successors-in-
\ninterest of Ram Sarup and Kanhiya who claimed the compensation to the
\nextent of their shares. After examining the matter in detail, the learned
\nCourt below opined that the claim petition filed by Nain Sukh, Chandgi and
\nothers was misconceived and the parties to the dispute were entitled to share
\nof compensation on account          of the   acquired land according to the
\nquantum of land owned by them.\n<\/p>\n
                Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per the
\nrevenue record, Ram Sarup and Kanhiya were shown to be gair bazran. The
\nentire land was in possession of Nain Sukh and others. Once whereabouts of
\nRam Sarup and Kanhiya sons of Nandan son of Tota Ram were not known,
\ntheir successors-in-interest were not entitled to any compensation
\nwhatsoever. However, he did not dispute the fact that in the revenue record,
\nRam Sarup and Kanhiya have been shown to be the co-sharers to the extent
\nof 1\/3rd with the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
                On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
\nsubmitted that the stand of the appellants in the objection petition filed
\nbefore the Court below was altogether different than the issue on which they
\nled evidence which cannot be considered at all as the same was beyond
\npleadings. Once Ram Sarup and Kanhiya had been shown to be co-sharers
\nin the big chunk of land with the appellants, the appellants cannot claim
\nthemselves to be in exclusive possession or even the ownership thereof as
\nany co-sharer remains in possession of the land on behalf of all others even
\nif any one of them has exclusive possession of a part of the land. There is no
\nquestion of adverse possession, abandonment or relinquishment of rights by
\none co-owner in favour of the other co-owner even after the land was not
\nbeing cultivated by him. Reliance has been placed upon Kanhiya Shanker
\nand others v. Mohabata Sedhu and others<\/a>, AIR 1960 Punjab 494; Gram
\nPanchayat Sidhbari, Tehsil Kangra v. Sukh Ram Dass,<\/a> (1963) 65 P.L.R.
\n1043; Govindammal v. R. Perumal Chettiar & others<\/a>, AIR 2007 SC 204 and
\n R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984                                                      [3]<\/p>\n
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and others v. Revamma and others<\/a>, AIR 2007
\nSC 1753.\n<\/p>\n
                Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
\n                The details on Form No. 19 regarding amount of compensation
\npayable to the owners of the land, as prepared on the basis of revenue record
\nand as is noticed in the judgment of the Court, is extracted as under:<\/p>\n
\n\n\n   \"Name of the owner          Land acquired                               Net compensation\n   Ram Sarup, Kanhiya          Khewat\/Khatauni                             46289-91-51 paise\n   ss\/o Nand s\/o Tota Ram      No. 2\/4\n   1\/3 share gair bazran.      Khasra No. 41<\/span>\n                               5\/2, 6\/1, 7\/1\/1\n                               0-6 6-10 0-7\n\n   Nain Sukh s\/o Gribu         Khasra No. 42     Ram Sarup           Kanhiya\n   s\/o Jivraj 1\/6 sharer       8,   9,    10        1\/6                1\/6\n   Paras Ram s\/o Nodan         3-16,8-0, 8-0      6614-91           7714-91\n   s\/o Gribu 11\/48 share,      11\/1, 12          Nain Sukh          Paras Ram\n   Balwant, Ishwar, Kanwar     2-9, 6-18             1\/6              11\/48\n   Singh ss\/o Gribu                              7714-92             10608-02\n   43\/16 share, Hari Ram,      Total land        Balwant            Ishwar\n   Lila, partner, Phul Singh   measuring           1\/16               1\/16\n   ss\/o Sehaj Ram s\/o Jai      34 K 17 M         2893-09             2893-09\n   Kishan 1\/12 share.          Chahi             Kanwar Singh       Hari Ram\n                                                    1\/16             1\/48\n                                                 2893-09             964-97\n\n                                                 Lila               Partap\n                                                 1\/48                1\/48\n                                                 964-37             964-37\n                                                      Phul Singh 1\/48\n                                                         964-37\n\n<\/pre>\n
   L.A. Case No. 61 of 1981 (Nain Sukh Vs. Than Singh)<\/p>\n
   Ram Sarup, Kanhiya,         2\/4                                         46289-51
\n   sons of Nandan son          Khasra No. 41<\/span>
\n   of Tota 1\/3 share              5\/2 6\/1
\n   gair Hazran                   0-6, 6-1<\/p>\n
   Nain Sukh s\/o Gribu,        7\/1\/1,   42\/8
\n   son of Jivraj, Chotta       0-7      3-16
\n   1\/6 share<\/p>\n
   Paras Ram son of             9        10
\n   Bodam s\/o Gribu 11\/48       8-0,     8-0<\/p>\n
   Balwant, Ishwar,            11\/1,     18      7714-91,         7714-91
\n   Kanwar Singh ss\/o           2-9      5-18   Ram Sarup 1\/6     Kanhiya 1\/6
\n   Nain Sukh s\/o Gribu
\n   8\/16 share
\n                               total land     7714-92             10608-02
\n                               measuring 34K Nain Sukh 1\/6        Paras Ram 11\/48
\n                               37 marla Chahi
\n                                              2893-09             2893-09
\n                                              Balwant 1\/16         Ishwar 1\/16<\/p>\n
                                                 2893-09          964-37
\n                                                 Kanwar Singh     Hari
\n                                                 1\/16             1\/48<\/p>\n
                                                 Lila 1\/48, Partap 1\/48, Phul Singh 1\/48
\n                                                 964-37     964-37       964-37
\n R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984                                                    [4]<\/p>\n
   L.A. Case No. 62 of 1981 (Chander etc. vs. Than Singh etc.)<\/p>\n
   Ram Sarup, Kanhiya       7\/26                                 110842-46
\n   ss\/o Nandan s\/o Tota     30\/1, 28
\n   1\/3 share gair           0-1, 13\/2\/16
\n   Hazran                         8-0<\/p>\n
   Chandgi, Surta           17<\/span>
\n   Mukhram                  8-0<\/p>\n
   Zile, Ram Kala, Jit Ram, 18\/1, 23\/2, 24, 25
\n   ss\/o 1\/16 share            3-4  5-4 8-0 8-0
\n   15\/220 Smt. Mihali, Pharto<\/p>\n
   Mehro, Roshani, Dharam 29\/20, 21\/3\/2, 4, 5
\n   Kaur, Ram Rati, Rattani 6-0,  7-05, 8-0 7-5
\n   1\/21 share<\/p>\n
   Ram Chander s\/o Siboo     6    7                   18473-74                   18473-75
\n   d\/o Bansi 1\/168 share,   5-8, 8-0                  Ram Sarup 1\/6              Kanhiya 1\/6
\n   Chhoti widow of Harnu                              9896-94                    9896-65
\n   s\/o Bansi 1\/12 share,                              Chandgi 5,                 Surja 5
\n   Vasi Deh Neej Kabzan                                      56                       5-56
\n   Hissa Gair Hazran<\/p>\n
                            total land measuring      9896-65                    9896-65
\n                            83K 9 M chahi             Kukhram 5\/56               Zile 5\/56<\/p>\n
                                                      9896-65                    9896-65
\n                                                      Ram Kala 5\/56              Jitram 5\/56<\/p>\n
                                                      659-77                     659-77
\n                                                      Nihali 1\/168               Pharto 1\/168<\/p>\n
                                                      169-77                     659-78
\n                                                      Mehro 1\/168                Roshani 1\/168<\/p>\n
                                                      659-78                     659-78
\n                                                      Dharamkaur 1\/168           Ram Rati 1\/168<\/p>\n
                                                      Rattani 1\/168              659-78
\n                                                      659-78                     Ram Chander 1\/168<\/p>\n
                                                                 9236-87
\n                                                                 1\/12.”\n<\/p>\n
                A perusal of the details, as noticed above, shows that Ram
\nSarup and Kanhiya have been shown to be the co-sharers in the land to the
\nextent of 1\/3rd share, whereas rest of the land is owned by other co-sharers.
\nThe contention of learned counsel for the appellants that an absentee co-
\nsharer in fact, does not remain owner of the land is totally misconceived. No
\njudgment taking a view to that effect has been cited. The settled principle is
\nthat any co-sharer even in exclusive possession of the land holds the same
\non behalf of all the co-sharers.\n<\/p>\n
                The plea set up by the appellants that in fact, the other co-
\nsharers had abandoned or relinquished their rights in favour of the
\nappellants cannot be accepted as such. Even the plea of adverse possession
\nagainst the other co-sharers also cannot be accepted. As held by Hon’ble the
\nSupreme Court in R. Perumal Chettiar’s                           case (supra), a simple long
\n R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984                                  [5]<\/p>\n
possession is not effective to oust a co-sharer from the title of the property
\nbut something more positive is required to be done. There must be a hostile
\nopen possession denial and repudiation of the rights of other co-owners and
\nthis denial or repudiation must bring home to the co-owners. In the present
\ncase, there is no such action on the part of the appellants in this direction.\n<\/p>\n
                In Md. Mohammad Ali (dead) by LRs v. Jagdish Kalita &
\nothers, (2004) 1 SCC 271, Hon’ble the Supreme Court examined a series of
\ndecisions on the question of adverse possession and after extracting the
\nlegal propositions from various decisions, their Lordships concluded that
\nlong and continuous possession by itself, it is trite, would not constitute
\nadverse possession. Even non-participation in the rent and profits of the
\nland to a co-sharer does not amount to ouster so as to give title by
\nprescription. A co-sharer, as is well settled, becomes a constructive trustee
\nof other co-sharer and the right of a person or his predecessors-in-interest is
\ndeemed to have been protected by the trustees.\n<\/p>\n
                In Vidya Devi alias Vidyavati (dead) by LRs v. Prem Parkash
\nand others, (1995) 4 SCC 496, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that when
\nno period of limitation is fixed for filing a suit for partition by a co-
\nbhumidhar against his other co-bhumidhars in respect of a joint holding, the
\nquestion of the other co-bhumidhar acquiring his title to such holding by
\nadverse possession for over 12 years can never arise.\n<\/p>\n
                For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in
\nthese appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               (Rajesh Bindal)
\n                                                                      Judge
\nSeptember 05, 2008
\nmk\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Mangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008 R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) R.F.A. No. 2059 of 1984 Date of decision: September 05, 2008 Mangtu deceased through L.Rs. .. Appellants. v. Than Singh deceased through L.Rs. and others […]<\/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-188944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-08T22:12:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-08T22:12:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1350,\"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\\\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Mangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-08T22:12:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-08T22:12:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-08T22:12:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008"},"wordCount":1350,"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\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008","name":"Mangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-08T22:12:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mangtu-deceased-through-l-rs-vs-unknown-on-5-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mangtu Deceased Through L.Rs vs Unknown on 5 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188944","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=188944"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188944\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}