{"id":23131,"date":"2009-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-12T18:42:07","modified_gmt":"2016-09-12T13:12:07","slug":"surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Surinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Surinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No.3650 of 2007                                       1\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                      CHANDIGARH\n\n                              R.S.A.No.3650 of 2007\n\n                              Date of Decision : 02.09.2009\n\nSurinder Jit Singh                                ...Appellant\n\n                              Versus\n\nMalagar Singh                                     ...Respondent\n\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. I.S.Ratta, Advocate,\n         for the appellants.\n\n           Ms. Rita Kohli, Advocate,\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 the suit for<\/p>\n
specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 12.6.1994, was<\/p>\n
decreed.\n<\/p>\n
           The defendant-appellant entered into an agreement to sell for<\/p>\n
his residential plot No.222, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali, after receiving<\/p>\n
a sum of Rs.50,000\/- as earnest money. The sale consideration agreed<\/p>\n
was Rs.3,40,000\/- as premium and Rs.1,50,000\/- as paid up amount. The<\/p>\n
last date for completion of the bargain was fixed on or before 15.8.1994.<\/p>\n
At the time of agreement, the appellant had deposited Rs.60,000\/- alone.<\/p>\n
A sum of Rs.90,000\/- was deposited soon after the receipt of earnest
\n R.S.A.No.3650 of 2007                                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
money. Since, the plot was not transferred in favour of the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
though plaintiff claims to be ready and willing to perform his part of the<\/p>\n
contract, the present suit for permanent injunction was filed on<\/p>\n
24.12.1994, which was later on amended to claim decree for specific<\/p>\n
performance.\n<\/p>\n
          The stand of the defendant-appellant in the written statement<\/p>\n
was that the agreement ceased to exist after 15.8.1994, as the agreement<\/p>\n
was subject to condonation of delay in deposit of 15% of the amount and<\/p>\n
restoration of the plot by the Department. Since, the plot was not restored<\/p>\n
prior to 15.8.1994, the agreement stands frustrated.            The defendant<\/p>\n
communicated on 29.8.1995, 25.9.1995 and 28.5.1996 to the plaintiff that<\/p>\n
the plot has not been restored and the agreement stands cancelled and the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was asked to collect the money from the defendant, but the<\/p>\n
plaintiff played hide & seek and did not receive the letters, thus, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not entitled to decree for specific performance.<\/p>\n
          After considering the evidence led by the parties and Section<\/p>\n
13 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) relied upon by the<\/p>\n
defendant, the learned trial Court found that the condition for execution<\/p>\n
of the agreement to sell stands fulfilled and the purchaser has a right to<\/p>\n
get the contract make good. It has been found that admittedly the plot<\/p>\n
stands restored. The plea of the defendant that time was essence of the<\/p>\n
contract was not available as the lapse was on the part of the defendant,<\/p>\n
as he failed to get the plot restored.\n<\/p>\n
          The learned trial Court also considered Section 20 of the Act<\/p>\n
relied upon by the defendant to return a finding that the failure to<\/p>\n
specifically enforce the agreement would cause unfair advantage to the
\n R.S.A.No.3650 of 2007                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant.   Consequently, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of<\/p>\n
specific performance on payment of the remaining amount by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
within two months of the decree.\n<\/p>\n
          The learned first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by<\/p>\n
the defendant-appellant. It noticed that till 15.8.1994, the appellant has<\/p>\n
not deposited any amount over and above the payment of Rs.1,50,000\/-<\/p>\n
towards 25% of the cost of the plot. In terms of the agreement, the<\/p>\n
appellant was to deposit 15% of the cost of plot alongwith upto date<\/p>\n
interest and penalty, to enable him to get the possession of the plot in<\/p>\n
question. Therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to say that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is guilty of non-performance of his part of the contract. It also<\/p>\n
found that the defendant has not produced any letters allegedly written to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff to get the refund of Rs.50,000\/-. The learned first Appellate<\/p>\n
Court recorded that a sum of Rs.4,40,000\/- was deposited by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
within two months in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the<\/p>\n
learned trial Court. It also recorded that the plaintiff has agreed to pay<\/p>\n
the amount of Rs.8,78,991\/- deposited by the appellant, as stated in<\/p>\n
grounds of appeal before the first Appellate Court. The said amount was<\/p>\n
directed by the learned first Appellate Court to be deposited within two<\/p>\n
months of the decree of the first Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
          Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has<\/p>\n
vehemently argued that the agreement to sell the plot was subject to<\/p>\n
success of condonation. Since on or before 15.8.1994 i.e. the date of<\/p>\n
completion of the bargain, there was no condonation, therefore, the<\/p>\n
agreement stands frustrated.\n<\/p>\n
          The said argument has been considered by the learned first
\n R.S.A.No.3650 of 2007                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
Appellate Court and has rightly not found any favour with it.            The<\/p>\n
tentative price of the plot was Rs.6,00,000\/- as per the letter of allotment<\/p>\n
dated 3.3.1994. The appellant was to deposit 25% of the tentative price<\/p>\n
within 30 days from the issue of the said letter. In terms of the said letter,<\/p>\n
thus, the appellant was to deposit balance sum of Rs.90,000\/- within 30<\/p>\n
days. The balance amount was to be paid in six annual installments. The<\/p>\n
total sale price of the plot agreed to be purchased by the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
fixed at a profit\/premium of Rs.3,40,000\/- plus the paid amount of 25%<\/p>\n
cost of the plot, amounting to Rs.1,50,000\/-. The balance amount after<\/p>\n
deducting the earnest money was to be paid by the purchaser to the seller<\/p>\n
at the time of completion of the bargain.\n<\/p>\n
          The appellant was to pay 15% of the total cost alongwith upto<\/p>\n
date interest and penalty to the Authority for getting the possession of the<\/p>\n
plot.   In terms of the agreement between the parties, it was the<\/p>\n
responsibility of the appellant to get the plot restored having received the<\/p>\n
earnest money and agreed to sell the plot to the plaintiff. The appellant<\/p>\n
deposited only a sum of Rs.90,000\/- without any interest and penalty<\/p>\n
before 15.8.1994. It is the appellant, who has faulted in not making the<\/p>\n
payment of interest and penalty to seek restoration of the plot. The<\/p>\n
appellant cannot take benefit of his own fault. Still further, the time<\/p>\n
cannot be said to be essence of the contract as it is not essence so in<\/p>\n
respect of the contract of sale of immoveable property. The restoration of<\/p>\n
the plot was not in the hands of the parties, but within the domain of<\/p>\n
Punjab Urban Development Authority, therefore, on restoration of the<\/p>\n
plot, the plaintiff is entitled to seek specific performance of the<\/p>\n
agreement.\n<\/p>\n
 R.S.A.No.3650 of 2007                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
             It may be noticed that the plaintiff has filed suit for injunction<\/p>\n
in December, 1994, when the defendant intended to sell plot to some<\/p>\n
other person. The letter of cancellation of the plot was received by the<\/p>\n
appellant thereafter. The appellant has got restoration of the plot in the<\/p>\n
year 1997 i.e. during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
having sought specific performance of the agreement, the defendant<\/p>\n
cannot be permitted to seek the frustration of the contract merely because<\/p>\n
the plot was not restored before 15.8.1994, as the plaintiff has shown its<\/p>\n
readiness and willingness all through.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that specific<\/p>\n
performance of the agreement to sell at this stage shall cause undue<\/p>\n
hardship to the defendant. The learned trial Court has negated the plea of<\/p>\n
the appellant based upon Section 20 of the Act, but the appellant has not<\/p>\n
raised any such ground in the grounds of appeal before the learned first<\/p>\n
Appellate Court. No such argument was raised even before the learned<\/p>\n
first Appellate Court.      Before this Court, in voluminous grounds of<\/p>\n
appeal running to 85 pages, it is not asserted by the appellant that an<\/p>\n
argument was raised before the learned first Appellate Court that specific<\/p>\n
performance of the agreement at this stage would cause hardship to the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
             The only hardship, which is canvassed before this Court is that<\/p>\n
the appellant has deposited more than Rs.8,78,000\/- whereas the<\/p>\n
agreement is of a payment of premium of Rs.3,40,000\/- and that too on<\/p>\n
payment of meager amount of earnest money of Rs.50,000\/-. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the execution of sale at this stage shall cause acute financial loss to the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
 R.S.A.No.3650 of 2007                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
          The said aspect has been taken into consideration by the<\/p>\n
learned first Appellate Court.     The entire amount deposited by the<\/p>\n
appellant has been ordered to be deposited by the plaintiff as a condition<\/p>\n
precedent to seek specific performance of the agreement.             Even<\/p>\n
otherwise, in terms of Explanation 1 to Section 20 of the Act, mere<\/p>\n
inadequacy of consideration is neither an unfair advantage to the plaintiff<\/p>\n
nor hardship to the appellant.     Therefore, it cannot be said that the<\/p>\n
agreement is causing any hardship to the appellant.<\/p>\n
          Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant that the amount of Rs.8,78,000\/- was deposited by the appellant<\/p>\n
in the year 1997, but the said amount has been ordered to be paid to the<\/p>\n
appellant without payment of any interest.\n<\/p>\n
          The said argument is wholly untenable. It is plaintiff, who has<\/p>\n
been deprived of the benefit of the agreement having paid the earnest<\/p>\n
money in the year 1994.      The appellant cannot be permitted to take<\/p>\n
benefit of inaction in completing the bargain soon after the delay was<\/p>\n
condoned and even when the plaintiff initiated action on the basis of<\/p>\n
agreement in December, 1994 itself.\n<\/p>\n
          In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question<\/p>\n
of law arises for consideration by this Court in second appeal.<\/p>\n
          Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
02.09.2009                                      (HEMANT GUPTA)\nVimal                                               JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Surinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 2009 R.S.A.No.3650 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3650 of 2007 Date of Decision : 02.09.2009 Surinder Jit Singh …Appellant Versus Malagar 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-23131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSurinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 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\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-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=\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-12T13:12:07+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-12T13:12:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1526,\"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\\\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Surinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-12T13:12:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 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":"Surinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 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\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-12T13:12:07+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-12T13:12:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009"},"wordCount":1526,"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\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009","name":"Surinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-12T13:12:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surinder-jit-singh-vs-malagar-singh-on-2-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surinder Jit Singh vs Malagar Singh on 2 September, 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\/23131","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=23131"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23131\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23131"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23131"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23131"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}