{"id":230248,"date":"2009-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-10T11:07:55","modified_gmt":"2016-03-10T05:37:55","slug":"onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Onkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Onkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No. 2396 of 2006 (O&M)                                     1\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n                        R.S.A.No. 2396 of 2006 (O&M)\n                        Date of decision: 4.11.2009\n\nOnkar Singh\n                                                       ......Appellant\n\n                        Versus\n\n\nVijay Kumar\n                                                    .......Respondent\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\nPresent:    Mr. R.K.Arya, Advocate,\n            for the appellant.\n\n            Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate,\n            for the respondent\n                  ****\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            Plaintiff Onkar Singh filed a suit for mandatory injunction,<\/p>\n
which was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.),<\/p>\n
Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 11.5.2005. In appeal,<\/p>\n
the said judgment and decree were set aside by the District Judge,<\/p>\n
Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2006. Hence, the<\/p>\n
present appeal by the plaintiff.\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
            “2.         Onkar Singh filed main suit for mandatory<\/p>\n
            injunction on the allegation that he is the owner of the<\/p>\n
            shop in dispute fully described in the heading of the
\n R.S.A.No. 2396 of 2006 (O&M)                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
          plaint. That the shop was constructed by the plaintiff after<\/p>\n
          taking land underneath from the Punjab Wakf Board.<\/p>\n
          Construction was raised after getting permission from the<\/p>\n
          Punjab Wakf Board and getting site plan approved from<\/p>\n
          the Municipal Committee, Dinanagar.        That the plaintiff<\/p>\n
          and defendant had entered into partnership in the<\/p>\n
          business.    Partnership deed       dated 10.1.1990 was<\/p>\n
          executed amongst the parties and as per partnership<\/p>\n
          deed, net profit was to be divided amongst the parties.<\/p>\n
          After cancellation of partnership deed and settling the<\/p>\n
          accounts, shop in question is to remain with the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
          That the partnership deed was duly executed in the<\/p>\n
          presence of the witnesses. That after the dissolution of<\/p>\n
          firm and after decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, defendant<\/p>\n
          had no concern with the shop in question.          That the<\/p>\n
          defendant requested the plaintiff to allow him to carry on<\/p>\n
          business in the shop for some time with the assurance<\/p>\n
          that he will vacate the shop after a month or so and when<\/p>\n
          required by the plaintiff.     On the assurance of the<\/p>\n
          defendant, plaintiff allowed the defendant to work in the<\/p>\n
          shop as a licensee.       That the license was revoked.<\/p>\n
          Defendant was requested to hand over the vacant<\/p>\n
          possession of the shop but he did not agree.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          3.           Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed
\n R.S.A.No. 2396 of 2006 (O&M)                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
            written statement and contested the suit inter alia on the<\/p>\n
            ground that plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of<\/p>\n
            action to file the present suit and the suit is not<\/p>\n
            maintainable in the present form.      That the suit is not<\/p>\n
            within limitation and is bad for non-joinder of necessary<\/p>\n
            parties. That the suit is barred under order 2 Rule 2 CPC.<\/p>\n
            On merit allegation of the defendant is that he is owner of<\/p>\n
            the shop in question. That the land underneath the shop<\/p>\n
            was taken by the plaintiff by the Wakf Board but the shop<\/p>\n
            was   constructed by     the defendant.     Plaintiff did not<\/p>\n
            spend a single penny to construct the shop. That the<\/p>\n
            alleged partnership deed is a Sham Transaction and the<\/p>\n
            same was never acted upon. Partnership deed in fact is<\/p>\n
            a licence deed. Wakf Board had cancelled the allotment<\/p>\n
            of the land underneath the shop granted in favour of the<\/p>\n
            plaintiff. So the plaintiff ceased to have any right, title or<\/p>\n
            interest. Land underneath the shop was allotted to the<\/p>\n
            defendant w.e.f. 24.8.1993 and since then defendant is<\/p>\n
            in possession of the shop as an allottee of Punjab Wakf<\/p>\n
            Board and denied all other allegations.<\/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 plaintiff is the owner of the shop<\/p>\n
            detailed and described in the head note of the plaint?
\n R.S.A.No. 2396 of 2006 (O&M)                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
          OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          2.            Whether after cancellation of the partnership<\/p>\n
               between the parties, the plaintiff was entitled to remain<\/p>\n
               owner in possession of the disptued shop? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          3.            Whether the defendant is the licencee of the<\/p>\n
               plaintiff in the disputed shop? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          4.            Whether after cancellation of the licence of the<\/p>\n
               defendant, he has become a trespasser of the disputed<\/p>\n
               shop? If so to what effect? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          5.            Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to<\/p>\n
               file the present suit? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          6.            Whether       suit   of   the   plaintiff   is   not<\/p>\n
          maintainable in the present form? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          7.            Whether suit of the plaintiff is time barred ?<\/p>\n
          OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          8.            Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of<\/p>\n
          necessary parties? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          9.            Whether the disputed shop was constructed<\/p>\n
          by the defendant? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          10.           Whether the land underneath the disputed<\/p>\n
               shop has been allotted to the defendant by the Punjab<\/p>\n
               Wakf Board? OPD<\/p>\n
               10-A     Whether suit is barred under Order 2 rule 2<\/p>\n
               CPC?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 R.S.A.No. 2396 of 2006 (O&M)                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
              11.       Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the<\/p>\n
lower Appellate Court had erred in allowing the appeal filed by the<\/p>\n
respondent. The suit of the plaintiff had been rightly decreed by the<\/p>\n
trial Court. The suit property had been leased out to the plaintiff by<\/p>\n
the Wakf Board. The partnership entered into between the plaintiff<\/p>\n
and the defendant to run a joint business had been dissolved and<\/p>\n
hence, the plaintiff was entitled to get the possession of the shop in<\/p>\n
dispute. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed<\/p>\n
reliance on Salochna Devi v. Jagat Singh<\/a> 2000(3) Civil Court<\/p>\n
Cases 136 (P&H), wherein it was held that the suit for mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction with a direction to the defendants to vacate the premises<\/p>\n
was maintainable as the defendants were mere licensees and the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was a licensor.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed<\/p>\n
reliance on Laisram Noyon Singh vs. Miajan Mia and others AIR<\/p>\n
1969 Manipur 49 (V 56 C17), wherein it was held that a judgment in<\/p>\n
a former suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act between the<\/p>\n
same parties would not act as res judicata in a subsequent title suit<\/p>\n
between them.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed<\/p>\n
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Joseph Severance<\/p>\n
and others vs. Benny Mathew and others<\/a> 2005 (4) RCR (Civil)<\/p>\n
559, wherein it was held that the suit filed by licensor for mandatory
\n R.S.A.No. 2396 of 2006 (O&M)                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
injunction with a prayer to direct the licensee to vacate the premises<\/p>\n
was maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the appellant has next placed<\/p>\n
reliance on      the decision of the Apex Court in Kunjan Nair<\/p>\n
Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair and others<\/a> 2004 (1) Apex<\/p>\n
Court judgments 242 (SC), wherein it was held that where in an<\/p>\n
earlier suit prayer for injunction was rejected as plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
found to be in possession of the property then subsequent suit for<\/p>\n
recovery of possession with mesne profits was maintainable.<\/p>\n
           Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,<\/p>\n
has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed<\/p>\n
as the licence in favour of the plaintiff had been cancelled by the<\/p>\n
Wakf Board and the shop in dispute had been allotted to the<\/p>\n
respondent. The suit was not maintainable. In support of his<\/p>\n
arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of<\/p>\n
the Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Pandey and others v. Gulbahar<\/p>\n
Sheikh and others<\/a> (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 664, wherein it<\/p>\n
was held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
           “4.     A suit under Section 6 of the Act is often called a<\/p>\n
           summary suit inasmuch as the enquiry in the suit under<\/p>\n
           Section 6 is confined to finding out the possession and<\/p>\n
           dispossession within a period of six months from the date<\/p>\n
           of the institution of the suit ignoring the question of title.<\/p>\n
           Sub Section (3) of Section 6 provides that no appeal shall
\n R.S.A.No. 2396 of 2006 (O&M)                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
             lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted<\/p>\n
             under this Section. No review of any such order or<\/p>\n
             decree    is   permitted.   The    remedy    of   a   person<\/p>\n
             unsuccessful in a suit under Section 6 of the Act is to file<\/p>\n
             a regular suit establishing his title to the suit property and<\/p>\n
             in the event of his succeeding he will be entitled to<\/p>\n
             recover possession of the property notwithstanding the<\/p>\n
             adverse decision under Section 6 of the Act. Thus, as<\/p>\n
             against a decision under Section 6 of the Act, the remedy<\/p>\n
             of unsuccessful party is to file a suit based on title. The<\/p>\n
             remedy of filing a revision is available but that is only by<\/p>\n
             way of an exception; for the High Court would not<\/p>\n
             interfere with a decree or order under Section 6 of the Act<\/p>\n
             except on a case for interference being made out within<\/p>\n
             the well settled parameters of the exercise of revisional<\/p>\n
             jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.”<\/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
dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
             In the present case, admittedly, the suit land belongs to<\/p>\n
the Wakf Board. The case of the plaintiff is that he had raised<\/p>\n
construction over the plot leased out to him by the Wakf Board,<\/p>\n
whereas, the case of the respondent is that the shop in dispute had<\/p>\n
been constructed by him. Plaintiff filed a civil suit bearing No.142
\n R.S.A.No. 2396 of 2006 (O&M)                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
dated 26.8.1996 for possession of the shop in dispute along with<\/p>\n
other shops against Wakf Board, Anil Kumar, Sham Lal, Ram Lal and<\/p>\n
Vijay Kumar.\n<\/p>\n
             The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on<\/p>\n
7.10.1999.     It was observed in the said judgment Ex.D-5 that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, in his cross-examination, had admitted that the Wakf Board<\/p>\n
had allotted the shop in dispute to the defendant. Defendant was<\/p>\n
allotted disputed shop vide order dated 24.8.1993 w.e.f. 1.5.1993.<\/p>\n
The said finding was given by the Court after perusing the original<\/p>\n
allotment letters on record. It was further held that the suit filed by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was not maintainable as it had been filed beyond the<\/p>\n
period of limitation. It was also observed that it was clear from the<\/p>\n
evidence on record that plaintiff Onkar Singh was a tenant under the<\/p>\n
Wakf Board and had sublet the plots in favour of different persons<\/p>\n
and instead of execution of rent note had got a partnership deed and<\/p>\n
consequently was getting a fixed sum equal to monthly rent. The<\/p>\n
said partnership deed was a sham document in order to avoid<\/p>\n
eviction on the ground of sublet. Thus, the respondent is in<\/p>\n
possession of the property owned by the Wakf Board w.e.f.<\/p>\n
24.8.1993.\n<\/p>\n
             The case of the respondent is that after the allotment in<\/p>\n
favour of the plaintiff was cancelled, the shop was allotted to him<\/p>\n
and, thereafter, he raised construction. Partnership deed dated<\/p>\n
10.1.1990 was not believed by the Court in the civil suit No. 142
\n R.S.A.No. 2396 of 2006 (O&M)                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
dated 26.8.1996.\n<\/p>\n
            As per letter dated 2.8.1985, Wakf Board gave a liberty<\/p>\n
to raise construction to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff failed to<\/p>\n
establish on record that he had raised construction after getting the<\/p>\n
site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee. The allegation of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff that he was dis-possessed after 25.3.1996 was dis-<\/p>\n
believed in civil suit No.142 dated 26.8.1996. As per the same,<\/p>\n
Sham Lal, Anil Kumar, Ram Lal and Vijay Kumar had been allotted<\/p>\n
shops in dispute since 24.8.1993, which were earlier leased out to<\/p>\n
plaintiff Onkar Singh by the Wakf Board. In these circumstances,<\/p>\n
learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the suit of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was liable to be dismissed as the defendant had been<\/p>\n
allotted shop in dispute by the Wakf Board after the allotment of the<\/p>\n
same in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled. The license of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff had been revoked vide notice dated 3.10.1994.<\/p>\n
            The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant failed to advance the case of the appellant as these are on<\/p>\n
different facts.\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
\nNovember 04 , 2009
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Onkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 2009 R.S.A.No. 2396 of 2006 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2396 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.11.2009 Onkar Singh ……Appellant Versus Vijay Kumar …….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.K.Arya, 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-230248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nOnkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 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\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Onkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-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=\"2009-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-10T05:37:55+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\\\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Onkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-10T05:37:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1926,\"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\\\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Onkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-10T05:37:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Onkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 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":"Onkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 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\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Onkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-10T05:37:55+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\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Onkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-10T05:37:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009"},"wordCount":1926,"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\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009","name":"Onkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-10T05:37:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/onkar-singh-vs-vijay-kumar-on-4-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Onkar Singh vs Vijay Kumar on 4 November, 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\/230248","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=230248"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230248\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}