{"id":190868,"date":"1975-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975"},"modified":"2017-11-04T11:15:57","modified_gmt":"2017-11-04T05:45:57","slug":"sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975","title":{"rendered":"Sulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1957, \t\t 1976 SCR (1) 598<\/div>\n
Author: A Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSULLEH SlNGH & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSOHAN LAL & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/09\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR 1957\t\t  1976 SCR  (1) 598\n 1975 SCC  (2) 505\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1989 SC2073\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\n     Code of  Civil Procedure, Act V of 1908, order 20, Rule\n14-Pre-emption- Pre-emptor's suit, if stood dismissed on his\nfailure to  deposit pre-emption\t price within the time fixed\nby Trial Court.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  vendors  sold\t the  suit  land,to  the  appellants\n(vendees) by  a registered  deed of  sale for  Rs. 43,000\/-.\nThe' respondents  filed the  suit- for\tpossession  by\tpre-\nemption of  the land  in payment  of  Rs.  30,000\/-  on\t the\nallegations that   the\trespondents were on the date of sale\ntenants of  the land  under the vendors. I They also alleged\nthat the  sale took  place for Rs. 30,000\/- only and the re-\nmaining amount\twas fictitiously  mentioned in\tthe deed  of\nsale. The suit was - ' dismissed on the ground that one suit\non behalf  of the  four plaintiffs  who\t   were\t tenants  of\ndifferent parts of the land, was not maintainable. On appeal\nthe suit  was remanded for re-trial. At the trial on remand,\ntwo plaintiffs-\t withdrew from\tthe suit.  The\ttrial  court\ndirected the  remaining two plaintiffs respondents Sohan Lal\nand  Nathi   to\t deposit   Rs.\t6,300\/_\t  and  Rs.   5.670\/-\nrespectively on\t or before  1 April,  1969 less 1\/5th of the\npre-emption amount  already deposited  by  them.  The  Trial\nCourt gave  the respondent Sohan Lal a decree for possession\nby pre-emption\tin respect  of Killa Nos. 14\/1 . 17 and 18\/1\nof Rectangle  37. The  plaintiffs-respondents, aggrieved  by\nthe order  filed an  appeal alleging  that the decree should\nhave been  Passed for  the whole  of the  land\tbecause\t the\nrespondent Sohan Lal was also a tenant of Killa , -No. 24 of\nRectangle 37  under  the  vendors.  On\t29  July  1969.\t the\nAdditional District  Judge passed a decree for possession by\npre-emption in\tfavour of  respondent Sohan Lal of Killa No.\n24 of Rectangle 37 on payment of Rs. 9,100\/- and he was also\ndirected to  deposit this  amount on  or before\t 20  August,\n1969. The  decree in  favour of Nathi was maintained without\ncharge. The appellants filed an appeal before the High Court\nand it\twas contended before the High Court that respondents\ndid not\t deposit the  decretal amount  by l  April, 1969  as\ndirected by  the Trial\tCourt and,  therefore, the  suit was\nliable to be dismissed under order 20 Rule 14 of the Code of\nCivil Procedure.  The High  Court accepted the appeal of the\nappellants against  the plaintiff  Nathi and  dismissed\t the\nappeal against\tthe plaintiff-respondent Sohan Lal. The High\nCourt said  that since\tthe lower  appellate  court  granted\nSohan Lal   decree  for one more Killa and directed that the\namount would  be Rs.  9,100\/-.\tthe respondent was to comply\nwith the  appellate decree  and not  the decree of the Trial\nCourt.\n     Allowing the appeal by special leave,\n^\n     HELD: (1)\tThe directions\tgiven by the Trial Court are\nmandatory under the provisions contained in order 20 Rule 14\nof the\tCode of\t Civil Procedure. A decree in terms of order\n20 Rule\t 14, imposes  obligations on both sides and they are\nso conditioned\tthat performance  by one  is conditional  on\nperformance bt the other. [600E-F, G].\n     Naguba Appa  v. Namdey reported in A.I.R. l 954 S.C. 50\nand  Dattaraya\t S\/o  Keshav   Tawalay\tv.  Shaikh  Ali\t and\nAnr.<\/a>[1969] 2 S.C.R. 514 relied on.\n     (ii) It  is  only\tif  the\t plaintiffs-respondents\t had\nobtained  another  order  from\tthe  lower  appellate  Court\ngranting any  order of\tstay that  the lower appellate court\nmight have  considered the  passing of\tappropriate order in\nfavour of  pre-emptors. The  High Court\t should have allowed\nthe appellants'\t appeal and  not  made\tany  distinction  in\ndismissing plaintiffs  respondent Nathi's  suit and allowing\nPlaintiff-respondent Sohan Lal any extension of time to make\nthe payment. [601F-G]\n599\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 496 of
\n1974.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  order
\ndated the 2nd May, 1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
\nin R.S.A. No 1469 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     O. P. Sharma for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     R. N. Dikshit for Respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     RAY, C.J.-This  appeal is\tby special  leave  from\t the
\njudgment dated\t 2 May,\t 1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  are venders  of the  land in  suit. The
\nvendors sold  the land to the appellants for Rs. 43,000\/- on
\n26 August,  1965. The  transaction was by registered deed of
\nsale.\n<\/p>\n
     The respondents  filed this suit for possession by pre-
\nemption\t of   the  land\t  in  payment  of  Rs.\t30,000\/-  on
\nallegations that  the respondents  were on  the date of sale
\ntenants of  the land  under  the  vendors.  The\t respondents
\nalleged that their right of pre-emotion was superior to that
\nof the\tvendees. They  also alleged that the sale took place
\nfor Rs.\t 30,000\/- only\tand the\t remaining was\tfictitiously
\nmentioned in the deed of sale. The suit was dismissed on the
\nground that  one suit  on behalf of the four plaintiffs, who
\nwere tenants  of  different  parts  of\tthe  land,  was\t not
\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n
     On appeal the suit was remanded for re-trial.
\n     At the  trial on  remand, two  plaintiffs withdrew from
\nthe  suit.  The\t trial\tcourt  directed\t the  remaining\t two
\nplaintiffs-respondents Sohan  Lal and  Nathi to\t deposit Rs.
\n6,300\/- and  Rs. 5,670,’- respectively on or before 1 April,
\n1969 less  1\/5th of the pre-emotion amount already deposited
\nby them.  The Trial  Court gave\t the respondent\t Sohan Lal a
\ndecree for  possession by  pre-emotion in  respect of  Killa
\nNos. 14\/1.  17 and  18\/1 of  Rectangle 37.  The\t plaintiffs-
\nrespondents aggrieved by the order. filed an appeal alleging
\nthat the  respondent Sohan  Lal was a tenant of Killa No. 24
\nunder the  vendors and the decree should have been passed in
\ntheir favor for the whole of the land and that decree should
\nhave been  passed in favour of Sohan Lal in respect of Killa
\nNo. 24\tof Rectangle  37. The other ground in the appeal was
\nthat the  decree should\t have been  passed in  favour of the
\nplaintiffs-respondents for whole  of the land.\n<\/p>\n
     The Additional District Judge on 29 July, 1969 passed a
\ndecree\tfor.   possession  by\tpre-emotion  in\t  favour  of
\nrespondent Sohan  Lal on  payment of  Rs. 9,100-  and he was
\ndirected to  deposit this  amount in  Court on\tor before 20
\nAugust, 1969.  The Addition  District Judge  passed a decree
\nfor possession\tby pre-emption in favour of respondent Sohan
\nLal of\tKilla No.  24 of  Rectangle 37. The decree in favour
\nthe respondent Nathi was maintained without change.\n<\/p>\n
     Thereafter, the  appellants preferred  an appeal in the
\nHigh  Court  alleging  that  the  decision  that  plaintiff-
\nrespondent Sohan Lal was also a
\n600<\/span>
\ntenant of Killa No. 24 was incorrect and should be set aside
\nand the\t decree of  the Trial  Court should be restored. The
\nappellants also\t prayed that the decree in favour of the two
\nplaintiffs-respondents Sohan Lal and Nathi were liable to be
\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  contended before  the High\t Court\tthat
\nrespondents Sohan Lal and Nathi did not deposit the decretal
\namount by  1 April, 1969 as directed by the Trial Court and,
\ntherefore, the\tsuit was  liable to  be dismissed  under the
\nprovisions contained  in order\t20 Rule\t 14 of\tthe Code  of
\nCivil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
     The other\tcontention of the appellants before the High
\nCourt was that the plaintiff-respondent Sohan Lal should not
\nhave been granted pre-emption rights in respect of Killa No.\n<\/p>\n
24.
\n     The High  Court on\t 2 May,\t 1973 accepted the appeal of
\nthe appellants\tagainst the  plaintiff: Nathi  and dismissed
\nthe appeal  against the\t plaintiff-respondent Sohan Lal. The
\nHigh Court said that since the lower appellate court granted
\nMohan Lal  decree for  one more\t Killa and directed that the
\namount would  be Rs.  9,100\/-, the  respondent was to comply
\nwith the  appellate decree  and not  the decree of the Trial
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  contended that  neither Sohan  Lal\t nor
\nNathi deposited\t the amount in accordance with the decree of
\nthe Trial  Court on  or before\tl April,  1969 and  the suit
\nshould have  been dismissed  on that  ground alone  and\t the
\nappeal should  have been  allowed. The\tappellants contended
\nthat the lower appellate court had no power and jurisdiction
\nto give\t further time to Sohan Lal to deposit the preemption
\namount by an extended date. r.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court\t in Naguba  Appa v.  Namdev<\/a>(1) held that the
\ndirections given  by the Trial Court are mandatory under the
\nprovisions contained  in order\t20 Rule\t 14 of\tthe Code  of
\nCivil Procedure.  This Court  in Naguba\t Appa’s case (supra)
\nsaid that  “mere filing\t of an\tappeal does  not suspend the
\ndecree of  the Trial Court and unless that decree is altered
\nin any\tmanner by  the Court  of Appeal,  the pre-emptor  is
\nbound to comply with that direction’`.\n<\/p>\n
     In Dattaraya  s\/o\tKeshav\tTawalay\t v.  Shaikh  Mahboob
\nShaikh Ali  & Anr.<\/a>(2) this Court said that a decree in terms
\nof order  20 Rule  14, imposes obligations on both sides and
\nthey  are   so\tconditioned   that  performance\t by  one  is
\nconditional on\tperformance by\tthe other. To illustrate, if
\nthe defendants\tby obtaining  the stay\torder from  the High
\nCourt  relieve\tthemselves  of\tthe  obligation\t to  deliver
\npossession of  the  properties\tthe  plaintiff-decree-holder
\nmust also  be deemed thereby to be relieved of the necessity
\nof depositing the money so long as the stay order continues.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  present case, the lower appellate court did not
\ngrant any stay to the plaintiffs-respondents. In view of the
\nfact that  the plaintiffs  respondents did  not deposit\t the
\namount as directed by the Trial Court
\n     (1) A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 50.\t     (2) [1969] 2 S.C.R 514.\n<\/p>\n
601<\/span><\/p>\n
on or before 1 April, 1969, it became mandatory on the lower
\nappellate court\t by reason  of the  ruling of  this Court in
\nNaguba\tAppa’s\t case  (supra)\tto  dismiss  the  suit.\t The
\nobservations of\t this Court  in Naguba\tAppa’s case  (supra)
\nthat the  pre-emptor is\t bound to comply with the directions
\nof the\tTrial Judge  unless that  decree is  altered in\t any
\nmanner by  a Court  of Appeal  do not  mean that  where\t the
\ndeposit is not made in accordance with the directions of the
\nTrial Court,  the appellate  court can\textend the  time for
\npayment. Thereafter,  the lower appellate court was in error
\nin extending the time for payment till 2 . August, 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     In Naguba\tAppa’s case  the pre-emption  money was\t not
\ndeposited within  the time  fixed in  the decree.  The\tpre-
\nemptor made  an application  to the  Court  for\t making\t the
\ndeposit without disclosing that the time fixed by the decree
\nhad elapsed. The application was allowed The defendant, when
\napprised of  the situation, made an application to the Court
\nto the\teffect that  the plaintiff’s suit stood dismissed on
\naccount of  his failure\t in making  the deposit in time. The
\nTrial Judge  held that the pre-emption money not having been
\npaid within  the time  fixed in\t the decree  the suit  stood
\ndismissed. On  appeal the  decision was set aside. On second
\nappeal it  was restored\t and it was held that the suit stood
\ndismissed under\t order 20,  Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code. An
\nappeal was  preferred against the judgment of the High Court
\nthis Court  Held that  the High\t Court was  right in holding
\nthat the  pre-emptor’s suit stood dismissed by reason of his
\ndefault in  not depositing  the pre-emption price within the
\ntime fixed in the Trial Court’s decree.\n<\/p>\n
     The  contention   of  the\tappellants  that  the  lower
\nappellate court\t was wrong in extending the time for payment
\nis correct because the failure of the plaintiffs-respondents
\nto deposit  the amount\tin terms of the-Trial Court’s decree
\nwould result  in pre-emptor’s’\tsuit standing  dismissed  by
\nreason of  their default  in not  depositing the pre-emption
\nprice. The  contention of the appellants that the High Court
\nwas wrong  in not  setting aside  the order  of extension of
\ntime passes  by the  lower appellate court is correct. It is
\nonly if\t the plaintiffs-respondents  had paid  the  decretal
\namount within  the time granted by the Trial Court or if the
\nplaintiffs-respondents had  obtained another  order from the
\nlower appellate\t Court granting\t any order  of stay that the
\nlower appellate\t court might  have considered the passing of
\nappropriate order  in favour  of pre-emptors. The High Court
\nshould have allowed the appellant-s’ appeal and not made any
\ndistinction in\tdismissing plaintiff-respondent Nathi’s suit
\nand allowing plaintiff-respondent Sohan Lal any extension of
\ntime to\t make the  payment. Further,  it  appears  that\t the
\nplaintiff respondent Sohan Lal did not pay the amount.\n<\/p>\n
     For these\treasons the  appeal is accepted. Suit of the
\nplaintiffs  respondents\t is-dismissed.\tThe  appellants\t are
\nentitled to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   V.M.K.Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
8-L925upCI\/75
\n602<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 1957, 1976 SCR (1) 598 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) PETITIONER: SULLEH SlNGH & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SOHAN LAL & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/09\/1975 BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) […]<\/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-190868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975 - 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\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-04T05:45:57+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-04T05:45:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975\"},\"wordCount\":1480,\"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\\\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975\",\"name\":\"Sulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-04T05:45:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Sulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975 - 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\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-04T05:45:57+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975","datePublished":"1975-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-04T05:45:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975"},"wordCount":1480,"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\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975","name":"Sulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-04T05:45:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sulleh-slngh-ors-vs-sohan-lal-anr-on-2-september-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sulleh Slngh & Ors vs Sohan Lal & Anr on 2 September, 1975"}]},{"@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\/190868","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=190868"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190868\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190868"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190868"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190868"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}