{"id":228964,"date":"2007-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007"},"modified":"2018-12-21T16:58:17","modified_gmt":"2018-12-21T11:28:17","slug":"hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6222 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nHardev Singh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGurmail Singh (Dead) by LRs\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/02\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal raises an interesting question of law in regard to
\ninterpretation of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“the Act”,
\nfor short).\n<\/p>\n
\tHarcharan Singh, the original Defendant No.1, allegedly transferred
\nsome properties in favour of his wife Udham Kaur in lieu of maintenance
\npursuant to a compromise entered into by and between them.  She claimed
\nherself to be the absolute owner thereof in terms of Section 14(1) of the
\nHindu Succession Act. 1956.  She filed a suit against her husband Harcharan
\nSingh for a declaration that she was the owner in possession of the suit land.
\nThe learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that as she had been in
\npossession of the property in lieu of maintenance, she was ‘entitled to enjoy
\nthe fruits thereof only during her life time’.  An appeal was preferred
\nthereagainst and the Appellate Court declared her to be the full owner in
\npossession of the suit land.  Indisputably, during pendency of the said suit,
\nHarcharan Singh sold the said land to the respondent herein by a deed of sale
\ndated 17.3.1982 and he had been given possession thereof.  Another suit was
\nfiled by Udham Kaur.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant, in the suit, inter alia, raised a plea that he was a
\nbonafide purchaser for value, whereas the case of Udham Kaur was that as
\nthe properties were purchased during pendency of the suit, the same was hit
\nby the ‘doctrine of lis pendens’, as envisaged under Section 52 of the Act.
\nThe said contention of the respondent was not accepted by the learned Trial
\nJudge as also by the First Appellate Court holding that the transaction was
\nhit by the doctrine of lis pendens.  In the Second Appeal, one additional
\nground was taken by him, viz., having regard to the death of Udham Kaur,
\nthe properties devolved upon the appellant herein as also on Harcharan
\nSingh in equal shares; and, thus, he should be declared to be the owner of the
\nlands in terms of Sections 41 and 43 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court, although, rejected the contention of the respondent
\nherein that Section 41 of the Act would be attracted, but opined that Section
\n43 would.  Appellant is, thus, before us.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. A. Mariarputham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nappellant took us through the judgment of the High Court and contend that
\nas the bonafide of the respondent was not proved and furthermore in view of
\nthe fact that the High Court itself opined that he was not entitled to the
\nbenefit of Section 41 of the Act, the judgment of the High Court upholding
\nhis claim in terms of the Section 43 thereof cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. R.K. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nrespondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tAlthough, in this appeal we are not concerned with the applicability of
\nSection 41 of the Act, with a view to appreciate the rival contentions raised
\nby the parties we may notice the provision of both Sections 41 and 43 of the
\nAct, which are as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “41.\tTransfer by ostensible owner. Where, with the
\nconsent, express or implied, of the persons interested in
\nimmoveable property, a person is the ostensible owner of
\nsuch property and transfers the same for consideration,
\nthe transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the
\ntransferor was not authorised to make it: provided that
\nthe transferee, after taking reasonable care to ascertain
\nthat the transferor had power to make the transfer, has
\nacted in good faith.”\n<\/p>\n
 “43.\tTransfer by unauthorized person who
\nsubsequently acquires interest in property
\ntransferred.  Where a person fraudulently or
\nerroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer
\ncertain immoveable property and professes to transfer
\nsuch property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the
\noption of the transferee, operate on any interest which the
\ntransferor may acquire in such property at any time
\nduring which the contract of transfer subsists.\n<\/p>\n
\tNothing in this section shall impair the right of
\ntransferees in good faith for consideration without notice
\nof the existence of the said option.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe distinction between the said two provisions is apparent.\n<\/p>\n
\tApplication of Section 41 of the Act is based on the law of estoppel to
\nthe effect that if a man has represented that the transferor consents to an act
\nwhich has been done and that he would not offer any opposition thereto,
\nalthough the same could not have been lawfully done without his consent
\nand he thereby induces others to do that from which they might have
\nabstained  he could not question the legality of the act he had so sanctioned
\n to the prejudice of those who have so given faith to his words or to the fair
\ninference to be drawn from his conduct.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe ingredients of Section 41 of the Act are :\n<\/p>\n
1)\tthe transferor is the ostensible owner;\n<\/p>\n
2)\the is so by the consent, express or implied, of the real owner;\n<\/p>\n
3)\tthe transfer is for consideration;\n<\/p>\n
4)\tthe transferee has acted in good faith, taking reasonable care to
\nascertain that the transferor had power to transfer.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 43, on the other hand, embodies a ‘rule of feeding the
\nestoppel’ and enacts that a person who makes a representation shall not be
\nheard to allege the contrary as against a person who acts thereupon and it is
\nimmaterial whether the transferor acts bona fide or fraudulently in making
\nthe representation.  [See Jumma Masjid, Mercara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah,
\nAIR<\/a> 1962 SC 847 : 1962 Supp.2 SCR 554.]<\/p>\n
\tIn order to get the benefit of the said provision, the conditions which
\nmust be satisfied are :\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tthe contract of transfer was made by a person who was
\ncompetent to contract; and
\n(2)\tthe contract would be subsisting at the time when a claim for
\nrecovery of the property is made.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever, the provisions would have no application if the transfer was
\ninvalid as being forbidden by law or contrary to public policy, as envisaged
\nunder Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.  Thus, no estoppel can be
\npleaded contrary to the provisions of a statute.  The ‘rule of feeding the
\nestoppel’ shall apply in absence thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe doctrine of feeding the estoppel envisages that ‘where a grantor
\nhas purported to grant an interest in land which he did not at the time
\npossess, but subsequently acquires, the benefit of his subsequent acquisition,
\ngoes automatically to the earlier grantee, or as it is usually expressed, feeds
\nthe estoppel’.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe principle is based on an equitable doctrine that a person who
\npromised to perform more than he can perform must make good his contract
\nwhen he acquires the power of performance.  The difference between the
\nambit of Section 41 and 43 of the Act is apparent.  Whereas Section 41
\nprovides that a transfer by an ostensible owner cannot be avoided on the
\nground that the transferor was not authorised therefor, subject to the
\ncondition that the transferee should take reasonable care to ascertain that the
\ntransferor had power to make the transfer and to act in good faith before a
\nbenefit thereof is claimed by him.  Section 43, on the other hand, enables the
\ntransferee to whom a transferor has made a fraudulent or erroneous
\nrepresentation to lay hold, at his option, of any interest which the transferor
\nmay subsequently acquire in the property, unless the right of any subsequent
\npurchaser for value without notice is in effect.\n<\/p>\n
\tWith the aforementioned proposition in mind, we may notice that the
\nHigh Court has declined to grant any relief to the respondent herein in terms
\nof Section 41 of the Act, inter alia, on the premise (1) that Harcharan
\nadmitted that he had sold the property to the respondent in order to frustrate
\nthe claim of Udham Kaur; (2) a public notice was not given; and (3) that the
\nrespondent knew regarding the pending litigation, and it was for the
\nrespondent to show that he had no knowledge about the litigation.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn applying the provisions of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property
\nAct, the High Court, however, held :\n<\/p>\n
i)\tIt was Harcharan Singh who had pleaded the mischief;\n<\/p>\n
ii)\tAfter the death of Udham Kaur, Harcharan Singh would be the
\nnatural heir of the half share of her property.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned Trial Judge and the First Appellate Court had decreed the
\nsuit of Udham Kaur only on the basis that she acquired the suit property
\nduring the pendency of the earlier litigation.  Section 52 of the Act merely
\nprohibits a transfer.  It does not state that the same would result in an
\nillegality.  Only the purchaser during the pendency of a suit would be bound
\nby the result of the litigation.  The transaction, therefore, was not rendered
\nvoid and\/or of no effect.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Jumma Masjid, Mercara (supra), speaking for a four Judge, Bench,
\nAiyar, J. opined :\n<\/p>\n
“Considering the scope of the section on its terms, it
\nclearly applies whenever a person transfers property to
\nwhich he has no title on a representation that he has a
\npresent and transferable interest therein, and acting on
\nthat representation, the transferee takes a transfer for
\nconsideration.  When these conditions are satisfied, the
\nsection enacts that if the transferor subsequently acquires
\nthe property, the transferee becomes entitled to it, if the
\ntransfer has not meantime been thrown up or cancelled
\nand is subsisting”\n<\/p>\n
\tReferring to the illustration appended to Section 43 of the Act, it was
\nheld :\n<\/p>\n
“…But far from being restricted in its scope as contended
\nfor by the appellant, the section is, in our view, general in
\nits terms and of sufficient amplitude to take in the class
\nof transfers now in question.  It is not to be readily
\nassumed that an illustration to a section is repugnant to it
\nand rejected”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was concluded :\n<\/p>\n
“…We accordingly hold that when a person transfers
\nproperty representing that he has a present interest
\ntherein, whereas he has, in fact, only a spes successionis,
\nthe transferee is entitled to the benefit of s.43, if he has
\ntaken the transfer on the faith of that representation and
\nfor consideration”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is one thing to say that the respondent was aware of the litigation,
\nbut it is another thing to say that he did not purchase the property on
\nrepresentation of Harcharan Singh.  In fact, from the judgment of the courts
\nbelow, it does not appear that any finding has been arrived at to the effect
\nthat the respondent herein was aware that the said Harcharan Singh had no
\ntitle over the property.\n<\/p>\n
\tOur attention has, however, been drawn to a decision of this Court in
\nKartar Singh (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. Harbans Kaur [(1994) 4 SCC 730],
\nwherein this Court held :\n<\/p>\n
\t“Section 43 feeds its estoppel.  The rule of
\nestoppel by deed by the transferor would apply only
\nwhen the transferee has been misled.  The transferee
\nmust know or put on notice that the transferor does not
\npossess the title which he represents that he has.  When
\nnote in the sale deed had put the appellant on notice of
\nlimited right of the mother as guardian, as a reasonable
\nprudent man the appellant is expected to enquire whether
\non her own the mother as guardian of minor son is
\ncompetent to alienate the estate of the minor.  When such
\nacts were not done the first limb of Section 43 is not
\nsatisfied.  It is obvious that it may be an erroneous
\nrepresentation and may not be fraudulent one made by
\nthe mother that she is entitled to alienate the estate of the
\nminor.  For the purpose of Section 43 it is not strong
\nmaterial for consideration.  But on declaration that the
\nsale is void, in the eye of law the contract is non est to the
\nextent of the share of the minor from its inception.  The
\nsecond limb of Section 43 is that the contract must be a
\nsubsisting one at the time of the claim.  A void contract is
\nno contract in the eye of law and was never in existence
\nso the second limb of Section 43 is not satisfied.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe said finding was arrived at, inter alia, on the premise that
\nKulwant Singh was a minor on the date on which the property was
\ntransferred and in the marginal note of the sale deed specifically mentioned :\n<\/p>\n
“…that the land had been acquired by her and by her
\nminor son by exercising the right of pre-emption and that
\nshe was executing the sale deed in respect of her own
\nshare and acting as guardian of her minor son so far as
\nhis share was concerned.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was held that under the Guardian and Wards Act, the estate of the
\nminor could not have been alienated unless a specific permission in that
\nbehalf is obtained from the district court and admittedly, no such permission
\nhad been obtained.  In that view of the matter, the sale of the half share of
\nthe interest of the minor son made by his mother was void.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have noticed hereinbefore that the transaction was not void.  It
\nwas not contrary to any provision of law.  It was not hit by Section 23 of the
\nIndian Contract Act.  We, therefore, do not accept the submission of the
\nlearned counsel that the ingredients of Section 41 would also be applicable
\nin a case falling under Section 43 of the Act.  We may notice that in Jote
\nSingh (dead) by LRs. v. Ram Das Mahto & Ors.<\/a> [AIR 1996 SC 2773], it was
\nheld that the provisions of Sections 41 and 43 would not be available where
\nthe properties have been sold in auction.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn N. Srinivasa Rao v. Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing
\n(Prohibition) Act & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 214], to which our attention has
\nbeen drawn by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, it was
\nheld that the transfer must be a valid one.  Therein, the property in question
\nwas transferred in violation of the provisions of Section 47 of the Andhra
\nPradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.  It
\nwas, in the factual matrix obtaining therein, opined :\n<\/p>\n
\t“Even on the question of the applicability of
\nSection 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, we agree with
\nthe view taken by the High Court that when the initial
\ntransfer itself between Uppari Ramaiah and Mir Riyasat
\nAli was invalid, the question of application of Section 43
\nof the Transfer of Property Act to such a transaction on
\naccount of subsequent acquisition of title by Uppari
\nRamaiah would not be available.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe said decision, therefore, has no application to the facts of the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of.
\nAppellant claimed absolute interest in the property on the premise that his
\nmother has executed a Will in his favour on 3.10.1995.  The said Will has
\nnot been proved.  If the title claimed is on the basis of the Will, the same was
\nrequired to be proved in the light of the provisions contained in Section 63
\nof the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.  If
\nthe Will has not been proved, in the absence of such proof the general law of
\nsuccession and inheritance shall apply.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe plea of inapplicability of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property
\nAct could have been taken by Harcharan Singh and not by the appellant,
\nwho has based his claim on the basis of the Will.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe principle of feeding the estoppel will apply against Harcharan
\nSingh and not against the appellant.  He could not have, in our opinion,
\ntherefore, raised the said plea.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this
\nappeal, which is accordingly dismissed with costs.  Counsel’s fee is assessed
\nat Rs.5,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6222 of 2000 PETITIONER: Hardev Singh RESPONDENT: Gurmail Singh (Dead) by LRs DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/02\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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-228964","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007 - 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\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-21T11:28:17+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-21T11:28:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2619,\"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\\\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-21T11:28:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007 - 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\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-21T11:28:17+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-21T11:28:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007"},"wordCount":2619,"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\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007","name":"Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-21T11:28:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hardev-singh-vs-gurmail-singh-dead-by-lrs-on-2-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hardev Singh vs Gurmail Singh (Dead) By Lrs on 2 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/228964","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=228964"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228964\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228964"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228964"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228964"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}