{"id":190599,"date":"1969-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969"},"modified":"2016-08-31T04:35:21","modified_gmt":"2016-08-30T23:05:21","slug":"chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969","title":{"rendered":"Chanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 349, \t\t 1970 SCR (1) 803<\/div>\n
Author: A Grover<\/div>\n
Bench: Grover, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHANAN SINGH & ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAI KAUR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n11\/08\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nSHAH, J.C. (CJ)\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR  349\t\t  1970 SCR  (1) 803\n 1969 SCC  (2) 429\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1976 SC2363\t (11)\n R\t    1986 SC1760\t (35)\n\n\nACT:\n    Punjab   Pre-emption  Act,\t1913,\ts.   15(2)(b)--Scope\nof--Amendment by Amendment Act of 1964--if has retrospective\noperation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n S,  the  owner of some land in a village  in  Punjab,\tdied\nleaving a widow and the respondent, his daughter by  another\nwife.  The widow sold a part of the land in February 1958 to\nthe  appellants, whereupon the respondent filed a  suit\t for\npossession by pre-emption of the land sold. The trial  court\ndecreed the suit and a first appeal was dismissed.  A single\nbench  of  the High Court allowed the second appeal  on\t the\nview that the respondent not being the widow's daughter, had\nno right  of  pre-emption  under s. 15(2) of the Punjab Pre-\nemption\t Act,  1913, as amended by  the\t Punjab\t Pre-emption\nAmendment  Act,\t 1960.\t However, a  division  bench  in   a\nLetters\t Patent appeal, relying on an amendment made by\t the\nPUnjab\tPreemption  Amendment  Act,  1964  in  s.  15(2)(b),\nreversed  the judgment of the single bench and\tdecreed\t the\nsuit.\n    It\twas contended in appeal to this Court that there  is\nno  indication\tin the Amendment Act of 1964 that it  is  to\nhave  retrospective operation and the amendment made  by  it\nshould be deemed to be only prospective.\n    HELD:  The\tAmendment  Act\tof  1964  was  merely  of  a\nclarificatory or declaratory nature.  Even in the absence of\nwords which were inserted by the Amendment Act of 1964 under\ns. 15(2)(b) the only possible interpretation and meaning  of\nthe  words  \"in the son or daughter of\tsuch  female\"  could\nhave  reference\t to and cover the son or  daughter  of\t the\nhusband\t of the 'female.  The entire scheme of s.  15(2)  is\nthat  the  right  of pre-emption has been  confined  to\t the\nissues\tof   the last male  holder from\t whom  the  property\nwhich has been sold came by inheritance. [805 H]\n    Under  s. 15(2)(b) the right of pre-emption\t would\tvest\nfirstly in the son or daughter of the husband of the  female\nmeaning thereby either her own off-springs from the  husband\nwhom  she  had\tsucceeded or the son  or  daughter  of\tthat\nhusband even from another wife. [806 G]\n    In\tthe  present  case the respondent  was\tentitled  to\nexercise  her right of pre-emption under paragraph First  of\nclause\t(b) of s. 15(2) even before the Amendment  of  1964.\nWhatever doubts existed they were removed by that Act  which\nmust be given retrospective operation. [807 E-F]\n    Ram Sarup v. Munshi & Ors,<\/a> [1963] 3 S.C.R. 858 and\tMota\nSingh v. Prem Parkash Kaur & Ors., I.L.R. [1961] Punj.\t614,\n627; referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 774  of
\n1966.\n<\/p>\n
    Appeal  by\tspecial leave from the judgment\t and  decree
\ndated  August 31, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in   Letters
\nPatent Appeal No. 91 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
Harbans Singh, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
804<\/span><\/p>\n
Bishan Narain and S.K. Mehta, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGrover,\t J.   This  is an appeal by  special  leave  from  a
\njudgment  of  a\t division bench. of the\t Punjab\t High  Court
\ndecreeing the suit filed by the respondent for possession of
\ncertain land by preemption.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t facts\tmay be shortly stated: Santa Singh  was\t the
\nowner of some land in village Samadh Bhai, tehsil Moga.\t  He
\ndied  leaving a widow Smt. Sobhi.  He also left\t a  daughter
\nSmt. Jai Kaur from his other wife.  On February 3, 1958 Smt.
\nSobhi  sold 73 kanals 14 marlas of land to  the\t appellants,
\nthe sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed being\t Rs.
\n8,000\/-.  Smt. Jai Kaur filed a suit for possession by\tpre-
\nemption\t of  the  land which had been sold  by\tSmt.  Sobhi.
\nAccording  to  her a consideration of Rs. 4,000\/-  only\t had
\nbeen  paid by the vendee.  The trial court decreed the\tsuit
\nin  May 1959 granting a decree for possession on payment  of
\nRs.  6,500\/-  together with costs.   The  second  Additional
\nJudge to whom an appeal was taken dismissed it.\t In the High
\nCourt  the learned Single Judge took the view that Smt.\t Jai
\nKaur not being the daughter of the vendor Smt. Sobhi had  no
\nright  of  pre-emption\tunder s. 15(2) of  the\tPunjab\tPre-
\nemption\t Act,  1913 ‘as amended by  the\t Punjab\t Pre-emption
\nAmendment Act, 1960.  The suit was dismissed.  Smt. Jai Kaur
\nfiled an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the
\nHigh  Court.  Relying on an amendment made by\tthe   Punjab
\nPre-emption Amendment  Act  1964  in the first paragraph  of
\nclause (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 15 of the Punjab\t Pre-emption
\nAct, hereinafter called the Act, the Division Bench reversed
\nthe judgment of the Single Judge and decreed the plaintiff’s
\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t relevant  provisions  of the  statute\tmay  now  be
\nnoticed together with the amendments made in 1960 and  1964.
\nSection\t 15  of\t the  Act was substituted by  s.  4  of\t the
\nAmendment  Act, 1960. According to the\tsubstituted  section
\nthe right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and
\nvillage immovable property shall vest thus :–\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t  (2) Notwithstanding  anything contained in
\n\t      sub-section (1)–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  (a) where the sale is by a female of\tland
\n\t      or  property  to\twhich  she  h,as   succeeded
\n\t      through  her father or brother or the sale  in
\n\t      respect  of  such land or property is  by\t the
\n\t      scan or daughter of
\n\t      805<\/span>
\n\t      such  female, after inheritance, the fight  of
\n\t      preemption shall vest,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   (i)\tif the sale is ‘by such\t female,  in
\n\t      her brother or brother’s son;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  (ii) if the sale is by the son or daughter
\n\t      of such female, in the mother’s brother or the
\n\t      mother’s\tbrother’s  sons\t of  the  vendor  or
\n\t      vendors;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By the Amendment Act 1964 in the first paragraph of s. 15(2)\n<\/p>\n
(b) between the words “such” and “female” the words “husband
\nof  the”  were\tinserted.  The result  was  that  after\t the
\namendment the portion of clause (b) relevant for our purpose
\nwas to read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “FIRST, in the son or daughter of such husband of\t the
\nfemale.”\n<\/p>\n
Now if the Amendment Act of 1964 could be regarded as having
\nretrospective operation so as to affect pending\t proceedings
\nthere\tcan be no dispute that the judgment of the  division
\nbench was light and must be affirmed.  The contention  which
\nhas  been raised on behalf of the appellants is that.  there
\nis no indication in the Amendment Act of 1964 that it was to
\nhave  retrospective operation and therefore  the  ‘amendment
\nmade by it should be deemed to be only prospective.  It\t may
\nbe mentioned that by s. 6 of the Amendment Act of 1960 a new
\nsection 31 was inserted in the Act.  That section  provided,
\n“no  court  shall pass a decree in a  suit  for\t pre-emption
\nwhether instituted be,fore or after the commencement of\t the
\nPunjab\t Pre-emption   Amendment  Act  of  1960\t  which\t  is
\ninconsistent  with the provisions of the said Act.”  in\t Ram
\nSarup v. Munshi & Ors.<\/a>(1) this Court held that the  language
\nused  in s. 31 was comprehensive enough so as to require  an
\nappellate court to give effect to the substantive provisions
\nof  the\t Amending Act whether the appeal before it  was\t one
\nagainst\t a decree granting pre-emption or one refusing\tthat
\nrelief. Although s. 31 was inserted in the Act for all times
\nthe  phraseology  employed therein does not  show  that\t its
\nlanguage  was  meant  to cover those amendments which  would
\nbe  made subsequent to the Amendment Act of 1960.  The\tword
\n“said”\tcan  have  reference  in the  context  only  to\t the
\nenactment  of  1960  and  to  no  other.  it  would  not  be
\nlegitimate for the  courts to give  an\textended effect to a
\nprovision  used and words employed warranted such  a  course
\nbeing followed.\t That does not appear to be the case here.
\n    It\tappears\t to us that the Amendment Act  of  1964\t was
\nmerely\tof a clarificatory or declaratory nature.   Even  in
\nthe  absence  of   the\twords which  were  inserted  by\t the
\nAmendment  Act\tof  1964 in s. 15(2)(b)\t the  only  possible
\ninterpretation and meaning of
\n(1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 858.\n<\/p>\n
806<\/span><\/p>\n
the  words  “in the son or daughter of such  female”   could
\nhave  reference\t to and cover the sort or  daughter  of\t the
\nhusband\t of the female.\t The entire scheme of sub-s. (2)  of
\ns. 15 is that the right of pre-emption has been confined  to
\nthe  issues of the last male holder from whom  the  property
\nwhich has been sold came by inheritance.  Looking at  clause\n<\/p>\n
(a) of sub-s. (2) where the properly which has been sold has
\ncome to the female from her ,father or brother by succession
\nthe  right of pre-emption has been given to. her brother  or
\nbrother’s  son.\t As has been observed in Mota Singh v.\tPrem
\nParkash\t Kaur & Ors.(1), the  predominant  idea seems to  be
\nthat  the property must not go outside the line of the\tlast
\nmale  holder and the right has been given to his male  linea
\ndescendants.   Where the sale is by the son or the  daughter
\nof such female the right is given to the mother’s brother or
\ntheir  sons.  The principle which has been kept in  view  is
\nthat  the  person  on  whom  the  right\t of  pre-emption  is
\nconferred must be a male lineal descendant of the last\tmale
\nholder\tof  the property sold.\tThis  is so with  regard  to
\nclause\t(a)  of sub-s. (2). Coming to clause (b)  where\t the
\nsale  is  by a female of land or property to which  she\t has
\nsucceeded through  her\thusband\t or through her son in\tcase
\nthe son has inherited the same from his father the right  of
\npre-emption is to vest firstly in  the\tson  or daughter  of
\nsuch  female  and  secondly  in\t the  husband’s\t brother  or
\nhusband’s  brother’s son of such female.  Now  if  the\t son
\nor  daughter of the female who has sold the  property  could
\nrefer  to her son or daughter from a husband other than\t the
\none  from  whom the property devolved on her,  it  would  be
\ncontrary  to  the  scheme and purpose of  sub-s.  (2)  which
\nessentially  is\t to  vest the right of\tpre-emption  in\t the
\nlineal\tdescendants of the  last male holder.  Similarly  it
\nis  unthinkable\t that  a  husband’s  brother  or   husband’s
\nbrother’s  son should have reference to a  husband  to\twhom
\nthe   property\t never belonged.  In other  words  it  could
\nnever  be  intended  that if a female  has  had\t a  previous
\nhusband\t who has either died or with whom the  marriage\t has
\nbeen dissolved and the female has remarried and succeeded to
\nthe  property\tof  her second husband the  brother  or\t the
\nbrother’s  son\tof her previous husband should\tbe  able  to
\nclaim  the  right  of  pre-emption  when  they\thad  nothing
\nwhatsoever  to do with the property sought to be  preempted.
\nIt  would  follow  that\t under\tclause\t(b)  the  right\t  of
\npreemption would vest firstly in the son or daughter of\t the
\nhusband\t of the female meaning thereby either her  own\toff-
\nspring\t,from the husband whom she has succeeded or the\t son
\nor daughter of that husband even from another wife.
\n    If\tthe  above discussion is kept in view  there  is  no
\ndifficulty  in attributing a retroactive  intention  to\t the
\nlegislature   when  the Amendment Act of 1964  was  enacted.
\nIt is well settled that if a
\n(1) I.E.R. [1961] Punj. 614. 627.\n<\/p>\n
807<\/span><\/p>\n
statute\t is  curative or merely declares  the  previous\t law
\nretroactive  operation would be more rightly ascribed to  it
\nthan  the  legislation which may prejudicially\taffect\tpast
\nrights\tand transactions.  We are in entire  agreement\twith
\nthe following view expressed in a recent full bench decision
\nof  the\t Punjab High Court in Moti Ram v. Bakhwant  Singh  &
\nOrs.   (1)   in\t which\ta  similar  point   came   up\t,for
\nconsideration:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “A close analysis of paragraphs  (First)
\n\t      and  (Secondly) of clause (b)  of\t sub-section
\n\t      (2)   of\tsection\t 15  before  the   amendment
\n\t      introduced  by  Punjab Act 13  of\t 1964  would
\n\t      demonstrate  that\t a son of the husband  of  a
\n\t      female  vendor though not born from  her\twomb
\n\t      would  be\t entitled to  preempt,\tparticularly
\n\t      when the husband’s brother and even the son of
\n\t      the  husband’s  brother  of  that\t female\t are
\n\t      accorded\t the   right  of   preemption.\t  To
\n\t      reiterate, the right of preemption is accorded
\n\t      manifestly on the principle of  consanguinity,
\n\t      the property of the female vendor ‘being\tthat
\n\t      of  her husband, and there is no\treason\t why
\n\t      the step-son should be excluded and the nephew
\n\t      of  the husband included.\t From this alone  it
\n\t      must  be\tinferred that  the  Legislature\t had
\n\t      intended\t  to   include\t a   step-son\t and
\n\t      consequently retrospective operation had to be
\n\t      given   to   the\tamending  Act  as   such   a
\n\t      construction appears to be in consonance\t‘and
\n\t      harmony with the purpose of the Act”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  result, therefore, is that the respondent was  entitled
\nto. exercise, her right of preemption under paragraph  First
\nof cl. (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 15 even before the  amendment
\nmade in 1964.  At any rate whatever doubts existed they were
\nremoved\t by  the Amendment Act of 1964 which must  be  given
\nretrospective operation.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal  consequently fails\t and it\t is  dismissed\twith
\ncoats.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed\n(1) I.L.R.[19681] Punjab 104, 120.\n808<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 349, 1970 SCR (1) 803 Author: A Grover Bench: Grover, A.N. PETITIONER: CHANAN SINGH & ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: JAI KAUR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/08\/1969 BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. SHAH, J.C. (CJ) RAMASWAMI, V. CITATION: […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190599","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969 - 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\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969\" \/>\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=\"1969-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-30T23:05:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-30T23:05:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969\"},\"wordCount\":1726,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969\",\"name\":\"Chanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-30T23:05:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"Chanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969 - 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\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-30T23:05:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969","datePublished":"1969-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-30T23:05:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969"},"wordCount":1726,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969","name":"Chanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-30T23:05:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chanan-singh-another-vs-jai-kaur-on-11-august-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chanan Singh & Another vs Jai Kaur on 11 August, 1969"}]},{"@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\/190599","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=190599"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190599\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}