{"id":242338,"date":"2008-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-22T16:18:46","modified_gmt":"2017-11-22T10:48:46","slug":"bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Bhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n              AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                    R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987\n                     Date of Decision : July 07, 2008\n\n\nBhundu Ram\n                                                           .....Appellant\n                                 Versus\nAmar Singh\n                                                          .....Respondent\n\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN\n\n\nPresent :    Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate with\n             Mr. Parvesh Saini, Advocate\n\n             Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with\n             Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate\n\n\nT.P.S. MANN, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             The defendant is before this Court in a second appeal filed<\/p>\n
under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act against the judgment dated<\/p>\n
23.4.1987 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhiwani whereby his<\/p>\n
appeal against the judgment dated 11.3.1986 passed by Senior Sub<\/p>\n
Judge, Bhiwani, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, was<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             In his suit, the plaintiff\/respondent pleaded that he was<\/p>\n
owner of the land measuring 75 kanals 10 marlas and the<\/p>\n
defendant\/appellant was in unauthorised possession of the same.
\n R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987                                            -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
Earlier to the plaintiff, one Man Kauri was the owner of the suit<\/p>\n
property. She leased out the suit property to the defendant for a period<\/p>\n
of one year, i.e. from Kharif 1981 to Rabi 1982. Vide decree dated<\/p>\n
15.5.1982 passed against Man Kauri, the plaintiff was declared owner<\/p>\n
of the suit property.    According to the plaintiff, the lease of the<\/p>\n
defendant was never extended. The defendant filed a suit for permanent<\/p>\n
injunction against Man Kauri and the plaintiff and had obtained<\/p>\n
temporary injunction and on its basis he continued to be in possession<\/p>\n
without any authority. The land was given on lease to the defendant by<\/p>\n
Man Kauri at the rate of Rs. 500\/- per acre. Since the defendant had no<\/p>\n
right to remain in possession, accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for a<\/p>\n
decree for possession and mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             While opposing the suit, the defendant claimed that Man<\/p>\n
Kauri had agreed that he could continue cultivating the suit land at the<\/p>\n
rate of Rs. 500\/- per acre and, therefore, he was continuing in<\/p>\n
possession of the suit land as a lessee. The change of ownership from<\/p>\n
Man Kauri to the plaintiff would not change the status of the defendant<\/p>\n
and therefore, he was not in unauthorised possession of the suit land.<\/p>\n
He also stated that he was ready to pay Chakota money at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs. 500\/- per acre but the same was not accepted by Man Kauri and the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed
\n R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987                                             -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
the following issues :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            1.     Whether the defendant is tenant over the
\n                   land under the plaintiff ? OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2.     Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claim
\n                   for use and occupation of the property in
\n                   dispute by the defendant ? If so to what
\n                   amount ? OPP.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3.     Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to
\n                   try this suit ? OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4.     Whether the suit is beyond limitation? OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            5.     Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and
\n                   mis-joinder of parties ? OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            6.     Whether the suit is not maintainable in the
\n                   present form ? OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            7.     Whether the suit is bad for want of
\n                   notice? OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            8.     Whether the less court fee has been affixed
\n                   on the plaint ? OPD.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n\n            9.     Whether the plaintiff has not come to\n                   the court with clean hands and whether\n                   he     is entitled to special costs ? If so,\n                   how much ? OPD.\n\n            10.    Relief.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
            After going through the evidence led by the parties, the
\n R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987                                             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
trial Court, vide judgment dated 11.3.1986, held that the defendant<\/p>\n
failed to prove that he was a tenant over the suit land under the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit for possession was decreed and the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was also granted decree for mesne profits amounting to Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4,500\/- for the period from Kharif 1982 to Rabi 1983 with costs and<\/p>\n
future interest. The findings arrived at by the trial Court were upheld by<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge-II, Bhiwani vide judgment dated 23.4.1987 in<\/p>\n
the appeal filed by the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            It is the case of the defendant-appellant himself that he had<\/p>\n
taken the suit land on lease from Man Kauri for a period of one year<\/p>\n
only. This lease came to an end with the crop of Rabi 1982. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the possession of the defendant-appellant over the suit property became<\/p>\n
unauthorised. He ceased to be the tenant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that even if<\/p>\n
the period of lease had expired and the defendant continued to remain<\/p>\n
in possession of the suit land, his status continued to be that of the<\/p>\n
tenant and, therefore, he could not be ejected except in accordance with<\/p>\n
law.   In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant referred to<\/p>\n
Section 2(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953,<\/p>\n
wherein ‘tenant’ has the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy<\/p>\n
Act, 1887 and includes a sub tenant and self cultivating lessee but did<\/p>\n
not include the present holder.      Under Section 4(5) of the Punjab
\n R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987                                                 -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
Tenancy Act, the ‘tenant’ is defined as under :-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “tenant” means a person who holds land under
\n             another person, and is, or but for a special contract
\n             would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that other
\n             person; but it does not include –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (a)   an inferior landowner, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (b)   a mortgagee of the rights of a landowner, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (c)    a person to whom a holding has been
\n                   transferred, or an estate or holding has been
\n                   let in farm, under the Punjab Land Revenue
\n                   Act, 1887, for the recovery of an arrear of
\n                   land revenue or of a sum recoverable as such
\n                   an arrear, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (d)    a person who takes from the Government a
\n                   lease of unoccupied land for the purpose of
\n                   subletting it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to<\/p>\n
Rameshwar v. Shri Sheo Chand and others, 1981 PLJ 362 and Ram<\/p>\n
Lal v. Darshan Lal and others<\/a>, 2008(1) PLR 361, wherein it was held<\/p>\n
that on the expiry of period of tenancy for fixed period, the tenant<\/p>\n
continues to remain a tenant and the tenancy could be terminated only<\/p>\n
when order of ejectment is passed against tenant on any of the grounds<\/p>\n
mentioned in Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the best course for the landlord was to seek ejectment of the
\n R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987                                            -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant-appellant by moving an application under Section 14 of the<\/p>\n
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and not by way of a suit for<\/p>\n
possession.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the<\/p>\n
evidence led by the defendant was not in accordance with the pleadings<\/p>\n
as set out in the written statement. In para 3 of his written statement,<\/p>\n
the defendant took up the plea that after the expiry of the lease period<\/p>\n
Man Kauri had agreed to allow the defendant to continue in possession<\/p>\n
of the property as tenant Gair Maurusi, therefore, it amounted to<\/p>\n
creation of a new tenancy after the expiry of the lease deed. This plea<\/p>\n
taken up by the defendant was not supported by any documentary or<\/p>\n
oral evidence. Therefore, any evidence, which was led beyond the<\/p>\n
pleadings of the parties could not be looked into. Reference in this<\/p>\n
regard may be made to Vinod Kumar v. Jagminder Das and another,<\/p>\n
1970 PLJ 362 and Sain Dass v. Lachhman Das<\/a> alias Lachhu Ram<\/p>\n
etc., 1981 CLJ (Civil) 129. Even otherwise protection under the Act is<\/p>\n
granted to a tenant for the period for which the tenancy subsisted and if<\/p>\n
the tenancy was for a fixed period and it had expired, then in that<\/p>\n
situation Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act did not<\/p>\n
come to the aid of the tenant. Learned counsel for the respondent has<\/p>\n
placed reliance on Mandir Jhoke Hari Har and others v. Shrimati Ajit<\/p>\n
Kaur and others, 1977 PLJ 315, wherein it was held that a person<\/p>\n
admitted to a tenancy did not continue to be a tenant for ever under the
\n R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987                                            -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act or the Punjab Security of Land<\/p>\n
Tenures Act. He remained a tenant so long as the tenancy subsisted.<\/p>\n
After the expiry of the fixed period of tenancy, Section 9 of the Punjab<\/p>\n
Security of Land Tenures Act would not come to his rescue. However,<\/p>\n
that did not mean that the landlord was entitled to take possession of<\/p>\n
the land forcibly on the expiry of the lease. He could evict him in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Once the defendant took up the plea that Man Kauri had<\/p>\n
leased out the suit property to him for a fixed period and the same had<\/p>\n
expired but Man Kauri had allowed him to continue in possession as<\/p>\n
tenant Gair Maurusi, he would be required to produce some material in<\/p>\n
that regard. In that situation he could not be considered as a tenant but<\/p>\n
considered as one continuing to be in possession with the consent of<\/p>\n
the landlord. Instead of producing any document whereby his tenancy<\/p>\n
was extended, the defendant has taken up the plea that once he was<\/p>\n
inducted as a tenant, then for all times to come, he could be evicted by<\/p>\n
the landlord only by seeking his ejectment on the grounds specified in<\/p>\n
Section 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. This plea had<\/p>\n
not been taken up by him in his written statement. Therefore, he cannot<\/p>\n
be heard saying that he could not be ejected by the landlord\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
except by moving an application by him under Section 14 of the Punjab<\/p>\n
Security of Land Tenures Act.\n<\/p>\n
 R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987                                               -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
            Even if the defendant\/appellant is allowed to argue that<\/p>\n
once he was inducted as a tenant, may be for a fixed period of time, he<\/p>\n
could be ejected from the suit property by the landlord by moving an<\/p>\n
application under Section 14 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures<\/p>\n
Act, the law is well settled that no such protection is available to a<\/p>\n
person from eviction after the expiry of the tenancy. In the case of<\/p>\n
Mandir Jhoke Hari Har (supra), it was specifically held that a person<\/p>\n
admitted to a tenancy remained a tenant so long as the tenancy<\/p>\n
subsisted. Once the period of tenancy expired, he ceased to be a tenant.<\/p>\n
He could, thereafter, be ejected by the landlord although in that<\/p>\n
situation, the landlord was to took recourse to law, i.e. to file a suit for<\/p>\n
possession, as had been done in the present case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            In the case of Rameshwar (supra), a single Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal v.<\/p>\n
State of Punjab and others<\/a>, 1970 PLJ 812, wherein the contention of<\/p>\n
the landlord that the tenancy had come to an end as soon as tenant<\/p>\n
became liable for ejectment for non-payment of the arrears of rent was<\/p>\n
rejected by observing that the tenancy after the enforcement of the Act<\/p>\n
could be determined only in the conditions prescribed by Section 9 and<\/p>\n
in the manner provided by Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land<\/p>\n
Tenures and so long the Assistant Collector did not pass the order<\/p>\n
ejecting the tenant, the right of the tenant was not extinguished and he
\n R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987                                              -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
continued to remain a tenant. In the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) the<\/p>\n
tenant was pleading         for statutory right of purchase during the<\/p>\n
ejectment proceedings launched against him by the land owner. The<\/p>\n
ejectment was sought by the land owner on the ground of non-payment<\/p>\n
of the rent. On the other hand, in the present case, the plaintiff had<\/p>\n
sought ejectment of the defendant on the ground that the period of<\/p>\n
tenancy had already expired and, therefore, defendant was in<\/p>\n
unauthorised possession of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            In view of the above, no case is made out for interfering in<\/p>\n
the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. None<\/p>\n
of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant arises<\/p>\n
for consideration. The appeal is without any merit and, is, accordingly,<\/p>\n
dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ( T.P.S. MANN )\nJuly 07, 2008                                         JUDGE\nsatish\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES \/ NO\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Bhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2304 of 1987 Date of Decision : July 07, 2008 Bhundu Ram …..Appellant Versus Amar Singh …..Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate […]<\/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-242338","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008 - 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\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-22T10:48:46+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\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-22T10:48:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1912,\"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\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Bhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-22T10:48:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Bhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008 - 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\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-22T10:48:46+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\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-22T10:48:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008"},"wordCount":1912,"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\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008","name":"Bhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-22T10:48:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhundu-ram-vs-amar-singh-on-7-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhundu Ram vs Amar Singh on 7 July, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/242338","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=242338"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242338\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242338"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242338"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242338"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}