{"id":227852,"date":"2009-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-01T16:35:12","modified_gmt":"2016-09-01T11:05:12","slug":"gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Gurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No.3877 of 2004 (O&M)                                  1\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                      CHANDIGARH\n\n                              R.S.A.No.3877 of 2004 (O&M)\n                              Date of Decision : 19.8.2009\n\nGurdev Singh                                     ...Appellant\n\n                              Versus\n\nUttamjit Singh                                   ...Respondent\n\nCORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA\n\n1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the\njudgment?\n2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\nPresent: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate,\n         for the appellant.\n\n           Mr. M.S.Khaira, Sr. Advocate, with\n           M\/s Dharminder Singh and R.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocates,\n           for the respondent.\n\nHEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)\n<\/pre>\n
           The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for<\/p>\n
specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 13.8.1999 was<\/p>\n
decreed.\n<\/p>\n
           The plaintiff has sought specific performance of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
agreement in respect of land measuring 24 Kanals 3 Marlas for a total<\/p>\n
sale consideration of Rs.3,62,250\/-. Rs.2,70,000\/- was paid as earnest<\/p>\n
money and the balance amount was to be paid on or before 31.12.2000,<\/p>\n
when the sale deed was to be executed. The plaintiff served a notice on<\/p>\n
11.12.2000 calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed either on<\/p>\n
29.12.2000 or on 1.1.2001 as 30.12.2000 and 31.12.2000 were holidays.
\n R.S.A.No.3877 of 2004 (O&M)                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
But still, the defendant did not execute the sale deed though the plaintiff<\/p>\n
remained present before the Sub Registrar on 29.12.2000 and on<\/p>\n
1.1.2001.\n<\/p>\n
            In written statement, the stand of the defendant was that the<\/p>\n
agreement to sell is result of fraud. Defendant denied receipt of any<\/p>\n
earnest money. It was alleged that the plaintiff is a relative of one<\/p>\n
Jaswinder Singh Sethi. Son of the defendant is employed as driver for<\/p>\n
driving the truck with Mr. Sethi. Mr. Sethi had purchased the truck by<\/p>\n
taking loan from the bank. He could not repay the loan and the bank<\/p>\n
seized the truck. A suit for recovery is pending in the Civil Court at<\/p>\n
Chandigarh. It was denied that any agreement was executed and no<\/p>\n
money was ever given to the defendant. A simple pronote was scribed in<\/p>\n
the Court for the first time. The alleged agreement was written in lieu of<\/p>\n
that note to create the evidence for the money.\n<\/p>\n
            To prove the execution of the agreement and payment of<\/p>\n
earnest money, the plaintiff appeared as PW-1 and examined PW-2<\/p>\n
Tarlochan Singh, one of the attesting witness and PW-3 Sham Bihari Lal,<\/p>\n
the scribe of the agreement. On the other hand, the defendant appeared as<\/p>\n
DW-1 and examined his son Gian Singh as DW-2. On the basis of the<\/p>\n
testimony of the witnesses, both the Courts have recorded a concurrent<\/p>\n
finding of fact that the defendant has executed the agreement to sell dated<\/p>\n
13.8.1999 Ex.P-1 and has received earnest money of Rs.2,70,000\/-. It<\/p>\n
was also found that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part<\/p>\n
of the contract and consequently granted decree for specific performance<\/p>\n
of the agreement to sell.\n<\/p>\n
            In the second appeal, the defendant-appellant has filed an
\n R.S.A.No.3877 of 2004 (O&M)                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
application for permission to lead additional evidence, so as to produce<\/p>\n
copy of the judgment and decree dated 10.3.1990 in a suit for specific<\/p>\n
performance filed by the plaintiff Uttamjit Singh against Gian Singh, son<\/p>\n
of the defendant, on the basis of agreement to sell dated 17.3.2000 in<\/p>\n
respect of land measuring 4 Kanals 19 Marlas.\n<\/p>\n
          The said suit for specific performance was filed on 16.9.2002<\/p>\n
i.e. much before the decision of the suit by the learned trial Court on<\/p>\n
25.9.2003. The appellant has not taken any step to move any application<\/p>\n
before the learned trial Court in respect of suit filed by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
against his son. The decree passed against the son of the defendant on<\/p>\n
the basis of separate agreement to sell is not relevant to determine the<\/p>\n
controversy in the present suit. Still further, the application has been filed<\/p>\n
after gross delay, though the appellant could move such application<\/p>\n
during the course of trial. Therefore, such application in second appeal is<\/p>\n
without any merit and the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
          On merits, learned counsel for the appellant has raised an<\/p>\n
argument that PW-2 Tarlochan Singh, the attesting witness, is a chance<\/p>\n
witness, who happen to be at the time of execution of the agreement to<\/p>\n
sell, though the sum of Rs.2,70,000\/- was purportedly paid at the time of<\/p>\n
the execution of the agreement. He is a relation of the plaintiff as well.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the finding that agreement to sell stands executed is vitiated in<\/p>\n
law. It is also argued that the plaintiff has not pleaded that he was ready<\/p>\n
and willing to perform his part of the contract. In the absence of such<\/p>\n
pleading, the decree for specific performance suffers from patent error in<\/p>\n
law and, thus, not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
          The execution of the agreement is proved by the statement of
\n R.S.A.No.3877 of 2004 (O&M)                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
PW-3 Sham Bihari Lal, the scribe of the agreement and that of plaintiff<\/p>\n
and attesting witness. It has been found that all the witnesses of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff were consistent so far as the execution of the agreement to sell is<\/p>\n
concerned. There are no discrepancies in their version. The stand of the<\/p>\n
defendant was that the agreement to sell was not executed and is result of<\/p>\n
fraud, but it was found that the defendant admits his signatures and of his<\/p>\n
son on the agreement to sell Ex.P-1. It is not explained that how the<\/p>\n
defendant and his son will sign a document unless it is intended to be so.<\/p>\n
           The findings recorded by the Courts below in respect of due<\/p>\n
execution of agreement to sell are sought to be disputed by reappreciation<\/p>\n
of evidence. Mere fact that witness is a relation of the plaintiff is not a<\/p>\n
ground on the basis of which his testimony can be disbelieved. The<\/p>\n
factum of relation will only require higher degree of scrutiny of his<\/p>\n
statement. The Courts below have examined the statement of the witness<\/p>\n
and found that there is no discrepancy and he is a truthful witness.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the findings recorded that agreement to sell Ex.P-1 is proved<\/p>\n
to be executed cannot be said to be suffering from patent illegality or<\/p>\n
irregularity.\n<\/p>\n
           The stand of the defendant was that the agreement to sell is<\/p>\n
result of fraud. The story propounded by the defendant has not been<\/p>\n
substantiated in any manner.\n<\/p>\n
           The argument that the plaintiff has not pleaded that he is ready<\/p>\n
and willing to perform his part of the contract is not tenable.           In<\/p>\n
Padamawati and others Vs. Kulwant Rai and others 2008(2) P.L.R. 424,<\/p>\n
it was held to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
           “31. In reply to such paras, the case of the defendants is of a
\n R.S.A.No.3877 of 2004 (O&M)                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
        simple denial. The plaintiffs vide Exhibit P.3 dated 6.12.1979
\n        communicated that the plaintiffs are always ready and willing
\n        to perform their part of the contract. The subsequent conduct
\n        of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 in contesting the suit filed
\n        by Bal Kishan also shows that the plaintiff and defendant No.1
\n        were ad-idem in respect of sale and purchase of the property
\n        inter-se. The plaintiff Kulwant Rai, while appearing as PW-2
\n        has deposed that he was ready and willing to get the sale deed
\n        registered in pursuance of the agreement Exhibit P.2 and is
\n        even now ready to get the sale deed registered. It is beyond
\n        dispute that it is for the plaintiff to plead and prove that he
\n        was\/is always ready and willing to perform his\/her part of the
\n        contract. Such facts are required to be pleaded and proved in
\n        terms of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.        the
\n        plaintiffs have pleaded in respect of his readiness and
\n        willingness to seek performance of the agreement. It is also
\n        well settled that such ready and willingness is required to be
\n        inferred from the entire reading of the plaint and the evidence
\n        led. It is not the mere use of the words, which is relevant but
\n        the intention of the plaintiff has to be examined keeping in
\n        view the averments made in the plaint. (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        32. In Udhav Singh Vs. Madhav Rao Scindia, AIR 1976
\n        Supreme Court 744, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a
\n        pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import.
\n        It is not permissible to cull out a sentence and passage and to
\n        read it out of the context, in isolation.    Although it is the
\n        substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into.
\n        The intention of the party concerned has to be gathered,
\n        primarily, from the tenor and term of his pleading taken as a
\n        whole.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        35. In Motilal Jain Vs. Ramdasi Devi 2000(3) RCR (Civil) 545
\n        : (2000) 6 SCC 420, the Supreme Court has the occasion to
\n        consider the Ouseph Varghese’s case (supra) and Abdul Khader
\n        Rowther’s case (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also
\n R.S.A.No.3877 of 2004 (O&M)                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
         referred to Ramesh Chandra Chandiok and another Vs.
\n         Chuni Lal Sabharwal (dead) by his legal representatives and
\n         others, AIR 1971 SC 1238 and Syed Dastagir’s case (supra). It
\n         was held that an averment of readiness and willingness in the
\n         plaint is not a mathematical formula which should only be in
\n         specific words. If the averments in the plaint as a whole do
\n         clearly indicate the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to
\n         fulfil his part of the obligations under the contract which is the
\n         subject matter of the suit, the fact that they are differently
\n         worded will not militate against the readiness and willingness
\n         of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract for
\n         sale. The aforesaid judgments were quoted with approval in
\n         Sugani (Mst.) V. Rameshwar Das and<\/a> another, 2006(4) RCR
\n         (Civil) 319 : (2006)11 SCC 587.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         If the plaint is read as a whole, the intention to prove the<\/p>\n
readiness and willingness has been clearly pleaded.          The relevant<\/p>\n
paragraph reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
         “2. That defendant entered into an agreement dated 13.8.1999
\n         to sell the suit property fully detailed in the head note of the
\n         plaint to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of
\n         Rs.3,62,250\/- (at the rate of Rs.1,20,000\/-). Earnesh money
\n         amounting to Rs.2,70,000\/- have been paid. The sale deed was
\n         to be executed on or before 31.12.2000.          The plaintiff on
\n         coming to know that 30.12.2000 and 31.12.2000 are holidays
\n         and sale deed cannot be executed, got issued notice dated
\n         11.12.2000 through his Advocate Shri Subhash Chander Handa
\n         calling upon the defendant to get the sale deed executed on or
\n         before 29.12.2000 or even on 1.1.2001. This notice was duly
\n         received by him but the defendant has not come present to
\n         execute the sale deed. The plaintiff got his presence marked
\n         from the office of Sub Registrar, Ambala on 29.12.2000 and as
\n         well as on 1.1.2001 by way of getting attested affidavits from
\n         the said authority while acting as Executive Magistrate. The
\n R.S.A.No.3877 of 2004 (O&M)                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
         plaintiff thereafter again got issued notice dated 17.1.2001
\n         calling upon the defendant to get the sale deed executed within
\n         a period of 10 days. Despite all this the defendant has not come
\n         to get sale deed executed showing that his intention is not to
\n         perform his part of the contract.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3. That the plaintiff has performed his part of the contract by
\n         paying the earnest money of Rs.2,70,000\/- and thereafter and
\n         had kept intact the balance sale consideration with him besides
\n         expenses etc. The defendant had never been ready and willing
\n         to perform his part of the contract as is evident from the fact of
\n         giving no response to the repeated requires and notices of the
\n         plaintiff.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            If the averments made in the plaint are read, it is apparent that<\/p>\n
necessary pleadings have been made.\n<\/p>\n
            In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with<\/p>\n
the findings recorded, in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is<\/p>\n
dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for consideration.<\/p>\n
19.8.2009                                         (HEMANT GUPTA)\nVimal                                                 JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Gurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 2009 R.S.A.No.3877 of 2004 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3877 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.8.2009 Gurdev Singh …Appellant Versus Uttamjit Singh …Respondent CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may […]<\/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-227852","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 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\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-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=\"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-01T11:05:12+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\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-01T11:05:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1900,\"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\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Gurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-01T11:05:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 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":"Gurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 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\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-01T11:05:12+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\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-01T11:05:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009"},"wordCount":1900,"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\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009","name":"Gurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-01T11:05:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdev-singh-vs-uttamjit-singh-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gurdev Singh vs Uttamjit Singh on 19 August, 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\/227852","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=227852"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227852\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}