{"id":227286,"date":"2009-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-28T00:12:53","modified_gmt":"2016-02-27T18:42:53","slug":"sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Sat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No.1152 of 2006                                           1\n\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                       R.S.A.No.1152 of 2006\n                       Date of decision: 22.10.2009\n\n\n\nSat Pal Singh\n                                                      ......Appellant\n\n                       Versus\n\n\n\nSardara and others\n\n                                                 .......Respondents\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:   Mr. R.M.Ravi, Advocate,\n           for the appellant.\n\n           Mr.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate,\n           for Mr.Sandeep Goyal, Advocate,\n           for respondent No.4.\n\n                ****\n\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
           Plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration and<\/p>\n
permanent injunction, which was decreed by the Civil Judge<\/p>\n
(Sr.Divn.), Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 27.7.2002.           In<\/p>\n
appeal filed by defendant No.1, the said judgment and decree were<\/p>\n
upheld by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and<\/p>\n
decree dated 30.11.2005. Hence, the present appeal by defendant
\n R.S.A.No.1152 of 2006                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
No.1.\n<\/p>\n
           Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate<\/p>\n
Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:-<\/p>\n
           ”           Brief facts need to be narrated here:- It is the<\/p>\n
           case of the plaintiffs that agricultural land measuring 5020<\/p>\n
           kls. 1 marlas representing 100401\/123183 share of the<\/p>\n
           total land measuring 5751 kls 11 mls comprised in khewat<\/p>\n
           No.590 khatoni No.679 to 861 as per jamabandi for the<\/p>\n
           year 1971-72 (attached with plaint) is situated within the<\/p>\n
           revenue estate of village Nauch Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal<\/p>\n
           and the same land vested in Jumla Malkan Hasab Rasab<\/p>\n
           Zare Khewat according to judgment and decree passed in<\/p>\n
           civil suit No.1063 of 1966 decided on 15.3.1967 and the<\/p>\n
           amended civil suit No.35 of 1968 decided on 7.1.69 vide<\/p>\n
           copy of mutation No.1423 from Gram Panchayat Nauch<\/p>\n
           tehsil and distt. Kaithal; that the agricultural land<\/p>\n
           measuring 5632 kls 18 mls representing 99681\/123183<\/p>\n
           share of the total land measuring 5725 kls 3 mls vide<\/p>\n
           mutation no.2360 of 21.8.1992 revested in Gram<\/p>\n
           Panchayat Nauch according to the Notification No.5491<\/p>\n
           of 15.5.1992 from Jumla Mustarka Malkan Hasab Rasab<\/p>\n
           Zare Khewat; that the above said notification was struck<\/p>\n
           down on 18.12.1994 by the Punjab and Haryana High<\/p>\n
           Court and as such the above said land mentioned in para
\n R.S.A.No.1152 of 2006                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
          No.2 of the plaint, again revested in Jumla Mustarka<\/p>\n
          Malkan Hasab Rasab Zare Khewat; that the proprietors of<\/p>\n
          the Jumla Mustarka Malkan land mentioned in para No.1<\/p>\n
          of the plaint are large and numerous and as such the<\/p>\n
          present suit is being filed by plaintiffs no.1 to 4 in their<\/p>\n
          representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC<\/p>\n
          on behalf of all the proprietors of Jumla Malkan Land and<\/p>\n
          they have no interest adverse to that of the proprietary<\/p>\n
          body of the Jumla Malkan and their interest same is<\/p>\n
          common; that the defendant No.1 filed a civil suit no.81 of<\/p>\n
          1973 on 24.2.1973 in the civil court claiming his title in the<\/p>\n
          land measuring 36 kls 0 mls representing 720\/123183<\/p>\n
          share out of the land mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint<\/p>\n
          owned and possessed by the proprietary body and the<\/p>\n
          same suit was decreed on 26.3.1973 in case Sat Pal<\/p>\n
          Singh versus Churia etc. and a mutation in respect of the<\/p>\n
          said decree was sanctioned on 7.6.1977 which is<\/p>\n
          numbering 1621 and the said judgment and decree<\/p>\n
          passed in civil suit No.81 of 1973 passed on 26.3.1973 in<\/p>\n
          case of Sat Pal Singh versus Churia etc. and the mutation<\/p>\n
          No.1621 sanctioning on 7.6.1977 is null and void, illegal,<\/p>\n
          nonest and not binding over the rights of the plaintiff on<\/p>\n
          the ground that defendant No.1 was not and is not the<\/p>\n
          owner in possession of any portion of the land mentioned
\n R.S.A.No.1152 of 2006                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
          in para No.1 of the plaint and that the civil suit No.81 of<\/p>\n
          1973 was filed by defendant No.1 against defendants<\/p>\n
          No.2 to 4 and the predecessor-in-interest named Khem<\/p>\n
          Chand of defendant No.5 to 9 in representative capacity<\/p>\n
          under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and no due permission was<\/p>\n
          granted   to   defendant    No.1    to    file   that     suit   in<\/p>\n
          representative capacity and the defendants of civil suit<\/p>\n
          No.81\/1973 were also not duly served which was<\/p>\n
          essential in law; that the judgment and decree passed in<\/p>\n
          civil suit no.81 of 1973 was a result of collusion in<\/p>\n
          between defendant No.1 (of this suit) and defendants<\/p>\n
          No.2 to 4 and one Khem chand the predecessor in<\/p>\n
          interest of the remaining defendants (of this suit); that the<\/p>\n
          impugned judgment and decree passed in civil suit No.81<\/p>\n
          of 1973 is nothing but a result of fraud played by the<\/p>\n
          defendants upon the plaintiffs and upon the court as well<\/p>\n
          that the impugned judgment and decree passed in civil<\/p>\n
          suit   No.81   of   1973   is   nothing   but    a      result   of<\/p>\n
          misrepresentation and concealment of facts before the<\/p>\n
          court; that defendant No.1 claims title for the first time<\/p>\n
          under the impugned judgment and decree passed in civil<\/p>\n
          suit and the decree has not been duly stamped and<\/p>\n
          registered and as such, the unstamped and unregistered<\/p>\n
          impugned decree confers no right, or interest upon
\n R.S.A.No.1152 of 2006                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
          defendant No.1.     The value of the land of impugned<\/p>\n
          decree is nore than Rs.100\/- and it goes against public<\/p>\n
          policy if the same is not registered; that under the garb of<\/p>\n
          the impugned judgment and decree passed on 26.3.1973<\/p>\n
          in civil suit noi.81 of 1973, defendant No.1 is bent upon to<\/p>\n
          get the suit land partitioned in collusion with some co-<\/p>\n
          sharers of the Jumla Malkan land and wants to get the<\/p>\n
          possession of his alleged share by way of partition of<\/p>\n
          which defendant No.1 has got no right, title or interest<\/p>\n
          whatsoever, hence, the present suit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          3.          Defendants contested the suit by way of filing<\/p>\n
          written   statement.      Several   preliminary   objections<\/p>\n
          regarding locus-standi;     their representative capacity<\/p>\n
          under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC; limitation; maintainability;<\/p>\n
          estoppel etc. were taken. On merits, each plea taken in<\/p>\n
          the plaint was controverted. It was alleged that the<\/p>\n
          plaintiffs and proforma defendants had the knowledge of<\/p>\n
          the suit and decree in question and the defendants of the<\/p>\n
          previous suit made statement in the court and the<\/p>\n
          mutation of the suit land on the basis of said decree has<\/p>\n
          also been attested publically and each and every one of<\/p>\n
          the proprietors had knowledge of the same. It was further<\/p>\n
          pleaded that defendant No.1 is owner in possession of<\/p>\n
          the suit land i.e. land measuring 36 kanal           0 mls.
\n R.S.A.No.1152 of 2006                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
            representing 720\/123183 share out of the total land<\/p>\n
            mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint. That the plaintiffs or<\/p>\n
            any proprietors of the village are not in possession of this<\/p>\n
            land which is exclusively in possession of defendant No.1.<\/p>\n
            It was further pleaded that suit was filed by defendant<\/p>\n
            No.1 with regard to his share 36 kls 0 mls which was<\/p>\n
            owned and exclusively possession by defendant No.1 as<\/p>\n
            his share and the said decree is within the four corners of<\/p>\n
            law, legal and binding on the plaintiffs and others and<\/p>\n
            there is no just ground for setting aside the same and<\/p>\n
            defendant No.1 is the owner in possession of the land<\/p>\n
            measuring 36 kls 0 mls as his share of the total land of<\/p>\n
            the proprietary body. With these pleas dismissal of the<\/p>\n
            suit was prayed for.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were<\/p>\n
framed by the trial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
            “1.          Whether the judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
            26.3.1973 passed in civil suit No.81 of 1973 is illegal null<\/p>\n
            and void as per the averments taken in the plaint? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2.           Whether the suit is within time? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3.           Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file<\/p>\n
                 the present suit? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            4.           Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 OPD
\n R.S.A.No.1152 of 2006                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            5.            Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing<\/p>\n
                 the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            6.            Whether the plaintiffs have waived their rights<\/p>\n
                 if any to file the present suit? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            7.            Whether the suit is not maintainable in the<\/p>\n
                 present form? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            8.            Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the<\/p>\n
                 necessary parties? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            9.            Relief. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves<\/p>\n
to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
            In the present case the plaintiffs had filed a suit for<\/p>\n
declaration that the judgment and decree dated 26.3.1973 passed in<\/p>\n
Civil Suit No.81 of 1973 were null and void. The said judgment and<\/p>\n
decree were challenged on the ground of fraud and that decree was<\/p>\n
not registered one. In the plaint in the said suit, plaintiff Satpal minor<\/p>\n
claimed himself to be a co-sharer and proprietor in the shamlat deh<\/p>\n
land. At that time, father of Satpal i.e. Man Singh was alive and was<\/p>\n
having land holding in his favour. It has been noticed by the learned<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge that Satpal, while appearing in the witness<\/p>\n
box as PW-2, admitted in his cross-examination that he was not<\/p>\n
owner of any other land apart from the suit land.               In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, Satpal could not be a proprietor of Jumla Mustarkan
\n R.S.A.No.1152 of 2006                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
land during the life time of his father Man Singh. Judgment Ex.P-3<\/p>\n
was passed in civil suit filed by propritors of the village against Gram<\/p>\n
Panchayat and the suit of the proprietors was decreed.          Plaintiff<\/p>\n
Satpal was not a proprietor as per the list attached thereto. Hence,<\/p>\n
the plaintiff could not get the judgment and decree passed in civil<\/p>\n
Suit No.1063 of 1996 as not binding on his rights merely on the<\/p>\n
admission made by the defendant in that case as the plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
a propritor of the suit land.\n<\/p>\n
            It has been observed by the learned Additional District<\/p>\n
Judge in the impugned judgment that a perusal of the written<\/p>\n
statement in the said suit revealed that defendants No. 1 to 4 had<\/p>\n
filed the written statement in individual capacity and not in a<\/p>\n
representative capacity. In these circumstances, the Courts below<\/p>\n
rightly held that    the said judgement was a result of fraud and<\/p>\n
collusion. Plaintiff Satpal in collusion with Churia, Hari Singh, Hari<\/p>\n
Ram and Khem Chand got the impugned              decree Ex.P-8 dated<\/p>\n
26.3.1973 in his favour. The land belonged to the Gram Panchayat<\/p>\n
and in order to usurp the said land, the collusive decree was got<\/p>\n
passed in favour of plaintiff Satpal. Such a decree was not binding<\/p>\n
on the rights of the present plaintiffs. The decree in question was not<\/p>\n
a registered decree. Since plaintiff Satpal in the said suit did not<\/p>\n
have any pre-existing right, the decree was required to be<\/p>\n
compulsorily registered.        Since the impunged decree dated<\/p>\n
26.3.1973 passed in civil suit No.81 of 1973 was not a registered
\n R.S.A.No.1152 of 2006                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
one, the same was rightly held to be illegal, null and void. Since, the<\/p>\n
impugned decree was obtained by fraud and collusion, the suit of<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs was rightly held to be not barred by limitation. In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs.\n<\/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
\nOctober 22, 2009
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Sat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 2009 R.S.A.No.1152 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.1152 of 2006 Date of decision: 22.10.2009 Sat Pal Singh ……Appellant Versus Sardara and others …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.M.Ravi, Advocate, for the […]<\/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-227286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 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\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-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=\"2009-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-27T18:42:53+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-27T18:42:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1729,\"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\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Sat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-27T18:42:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 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":"Sat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 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\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-27T18:42:53+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-27T18:42:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009"},"wordCount":1729,"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\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009","name":"Sat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-27T18:42:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sat-pal-singh-vs-sardara-and-others-on-22-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sat Pal Singh vs Sardara And Others on 22 October, 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\/227286","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=227286"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227286\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}