{"id":268053,"date":"2009-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2"},"modified":"2016-06-10T04:21:44","modified_gmt":"2016-06-09T22:51:44","slug":"randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Randhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar on 2 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Randhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar on 2 September, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No. 3344 of 2008 (O&M)                                     1\n\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n                       R.S.A.No. 3344 of 2008 (O&M)\n                       Date of decision: 2.9.2009\n\n\nRandhir Singh and another\n                                                       ......Appellants\n\n                        Versus\n\nSuresh Kumar\n                                                     .......Respondent\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:   Mr. Roopak Bansal, Advocate,\n           for the appellants.\n\n           Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate,\n           for the respondent.\n                 ****\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
           Plaintiff Suresh Kumar filed a suit for possession by way<\/p>\n
of eviction and for recovery of mesne profits, which was decreed by<\/p>\n
the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
20.12.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld<\/p>\n
by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree<\/p>\n
dated 25.8.2008.       Hence, the present appeal by the legal<\/p>\n
representatives of the defendant (since deceased).<\/p>\n
           Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate<\/p>\n
Court in para Nos. 2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under:-<\/p>\n
           “2.         The    plaintiff-respondent    filed   suit    for
\n R.S.A.No. 3344 of 2008 (O&M)                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
          possession of the disputed property measuring 3 kanals 1<\/p>\n
          marla as detailed in para no.3 of the plaint with further<\/p>\n
          relief of recovery of Rs.10,000\/- as mesne profits for the<\/p>\n
          period of 10.8.1999 to 9.10.1999 and further mesne<\/p>\n
          profits at the rate of Rs.5,000 per month from the date of<\/p>\n
          filing of the suit till delivery of vacant possession.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          3.            The case of the plaintiff-respondent, in brief, is<\/p>\n
               that he purchased land measuring 3 kanals 1 marla, as<\/p>\n
               described in para no.1 of the plaint, from Umrao Singh<\/p>\n
               for a consideration of Rs.25,500\/- vide registered sale<\/p>\n
               deed dated 7.8.1984. On the basis of the sale deed,<\/p>\n
               mutation bearing no.3094 was sanctioned in his favour<\/p>\n
               on 14.9.19085, by carving out Titamma in respect of<\/p>\n
               the land bearing Rect. & Killa No.56\/12\/1 (3-1). The<\/p>\n
               said land was leased out to the defendant for a period<\/p>\n
               of fifteen years commencing from 10.8.1984. On the<\/p>\n
               strength of the lease deed, mutation no.3121 was<\/p>\n
               sanctioned in favour of the defendant. The land was<\/p>\n
               leased out to the defendant for installation of a petrol<\/p>\n
               pump and the lease money was fixed Rs.3600\/- per<\/p>\n
               annum payable at the rate of Rs.300\/- per month.<\/p>\n
               Monthly tenancy commenced from 10th of each<\/p>\n
               calendar month and expired on 9th day of the following<\/p>\n
               calendar month. It has further been averred that there
\n R.S.A.No. 3344 of 2008 (O&M)                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
            had been litigation between the parties regarding<\/p>\n
            recovery of lease money, for rendition of accounts and<\/p>\n
            dissolution of partnership firm constituted by the<\/p>\n
            parties. The defendant had been taking inconsistent<\/p>\n
            pleas with regard to the status of the plaintiff as partner<\/p>\n
            in the partnership firm and with regard to the recovery<\/p>\n
            of lease money from the defendant on the strength of<\/p>\n
            the lease deed. In various judgments, the defendant<\/p>\n
            has been held to be a tenant during the period of lease.<\/p>\n
            The defendant also admitted his possession as tenant<\/p>\n
            under the plaintiff. The defendant raised plea that an<\/p>\n
            amount of Rs.30,000\/- was borrowed by him from the<\/p>\n
            plaintiff and interest at the rate of 10 per cent i.e.<\/p>\n
            Rs.300\/- per month was to be paid on that amount. In<\/p>\n
            civil suit No.291 of 24.8.1987, the plea raised by the<\/p>\n
            defendant was not accepted by the Court. The appeal<\/p>\n
            filed against the said judgment was dismissed on<\/p>\n
            4.5.1990. The plaintiff further filed a civil suit No.722 of<\/p>\n
            1990 on 27.8.1990 for recovery of lease money of<\/p>\n
            Rs.10,800\/- for the period of 10.8.1987 to 9.8.1990 and<\/p>\n
            that suit was also decreed with costs in his favour on<\/p>\n
            21.1.1994. The appeal filed against the said judgment<\/p>\n
            was dismissed on 16.2.1997. The plaintiff further filed<\/p>\n
            suit No.423 of 1993 for recovery of lease money of
\n R.S.A.No. 3344 of 2008 (O&M)                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
               Rs.10,800\/- for the period of 10.8.1990 to 9.8.1993,<\/p>\n
               which was decreed on 27.1.1998.             Civil suits for<\/p>\n
               recovery of lease money for the period of 10.8.1993 to<\/p>\n
               9.8.1996 and 10.8.1996 to 9.8.1999 were also pending<\/p>\n
               adjudication.   It has further been submitted that the<\/p>\n
               tenancy of the defendant was for a fixed period, which<\/p>\n
               ended on 9.8.1999. After expiry of the fixed term, the<\/p>\n
               tenancy    of   the     defendant   stood     automatically<\/p>\n
               determined.     Thus, the possession of the defendant<\/p>\n
               after efflux of time of tenancy originally fixed     in the<\/p>\n
               registered lease-deed dated 10.8.1984 is illegal and<\/p>\n
               unauthorised, but he failed to hand over possession of<\/p>\n
               the disputed property to the plaintiff in spite of repeated<\/p>\n
               requests. Ultimately, a notice was got served by the<\/p>\n
               plaintiff upon the defendant to hand over the vacant<\/p>\n
               possession of the suit property and for payment of<\/p>\n
               mesne profits for illegal occupation, but the same did<\/p>\n
               not yield any result.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          4.             The     defendant-appellant       filed   written<\/p>\n
               statement controverting the claim of the plaintiff on<\/p>\n
               various pump was issued in favour of the defendant,<\/p>\n
               being freedom fighter.     In the application form, there<\/p>\n
               was column for nominating financer. Father-in-law of<\/p>\n
               Tilak Raj was the financer and he was approached
\n R.S.A.No. 3344 of 2008 (O&M)                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
            through Tilak Raj at the instance of some friend and his<\/p>\n
            name was written in the form. Initially, financial help of<\/p>\n
            Rs.30,000\/- was sought, out of which land for the petrol<\/p>\n
            pump was purchased. Agreement to that effect was<\/p>\n
            executed by the defendant, but Tilak Raj became<\/p>\n
            dishonest and he wanted to take benefit of his position.<\/p>\n
            The defendant was humiliated on account of the<\/p>\n
            depressed condition of his mind. Tilak Raj managed to<\/p>\n
            get the sale deed executed and registered in the name<\/p>\n
            of his son i.e. the present plaintiff Suresh Kumar and<\/p>\n
            also got written the other document, which is said to be<\/p>\n
            alleged lease deed.      The same were without the<\/p>\n
            intention of the parties and as a result of fraud and<\/p>\n
            undue    influence   exercised   upon    the   defendant,<\/p>\n
            therefore, such documents are void ab-initio and not<\/p>\n
            binding upon the right and title of the defendant. It has<\/p>\n
            further been submitted that Tilak Raj previously<\/p>\n
            instituted a suit for declaration to get declared his son<\/p>\n
            Sujresh Kumar as partner in the business of the petrol<\/p>\n
            pump being run by the defendant. The said suit was<\/p>\n
            got dismissed on 16.3.1998. Since the year 1985, Tilak<\/p>\n
            Raj had been pursuing one litigation after the other.<\/p>\n
            One similar suit was decided by the court of<\/p>\n
            Sh.P.L.Ahuja, and that judgment was reversed by the
\n R.S.A.No. 3344 of 2008 (O&M)                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
                learned appellate court, which kept the status of the<\/p>\n
                parties as per dictum of the civil suit for declaration<\/p>\n
                pending at that time, which was got dismissed on<\/p>\n
                16.3.1998. After dismissal of the said suit, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
                was left with no such status, therefore, he is not entitled<\/p>\n
                to recover Rs.300\/- per month as lease money. The<\/p>\n
                plaintiff has no concern with the suit land whereas the<\/p>\n
                defendant is owner in possession thereof. Therefore,<\/p>\n
                the defendant is not bound to make payment of any<\/p>\n
                amount and deliver possession of the disputed property<\/p>\n
                to the plaintiff.   Other averments made in the plaint<\/p>\n
                have been denied.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
           On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were<\/p>\n
framed by the trial Court on 26.2.2001:-\n<\/p>\n
           “1.            Whether the tenancy of the defendant stands<\/p>\n
           automatically determined on the expiry of period of lease<\/p>\n
           on 9.8.1999, if so, to what effect? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           2.             Whether the notice of termination of tenancy is<\/p>\n
           illegal and not binding on the defendant? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           3.             Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover<\/p>\n
           damages of Rs.10,000\/- for use and occupation of the<\/p>\n
           premises in dispute for the period from 10.8.1999 to<\/p>\n
           9.10.1999? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           4.             Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for
\n R.S.A.No. 3344 of 2008 (O&M)                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
           possession of the suit property? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           5.            Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try<\/p>\n
           the present suit? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           6.            Relief. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
           On the basis of amended pleadings of the parties, the<\/p>\n
following issues were also framed on 4.5.2006:-<\/p>\n
           “1.           Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession<\/p>\n
           of the suit property, as alleged, if so to what effect? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           2.            Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of<\/p>\n
                Rs.10,000\/- as mesne profits of the property for the<\/p>\n
                period from 10.8.1999 to 9.10.1999 and future mesne<\/p>\n
                profit at the rate of Rs.5,000\/- per month as alleged, if<\/p>\n
                so to what effect? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           3.            Relief.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
           After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
           The plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of eviction<\/p>\n
of the defendant from the suit property and also for recovery of<\/p>\n
mesne profits. Parties led their evidence in support of their case.<\/p>\n
The Suit bearing No.496 of 1984 was filed by the plaintiff for<\/p>\n
declaration. During the pendency of that suit another suit was filed<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff bearing No.291 of 24.8.1987 for recovery of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,800\/- as rent. It was alleged that the defendant was a tenant<\/p>\n
over the property in dispute and was running a petrol pump on
\n R.S.A.No. 3344 of 2008 (O&M)                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
payment of yearly rent of Rs.3,600\/-. The said suit was decreed by<\/p>\n
the trial Court on 7.8.1989 and the appeal filed against the said<\/p>\n
judgment and decree was disposed of with a direction that the<\/p>\n
amount realized from the defendant be adjusted according to the<\/p>\n
terms of the decree of already pending suit. However, suit No.496 of<\/p>\n
1984 was dismissed in default vide order dated 16.3.1998.<\/p>\n
           The case of the plaintiff is that he had purchased the suit<\/p>\n
land vide registered sale deed dated 7.8.1984 for a consideration of<\/p>\n
Rs.25,500\/-. The defendant had set up a petrol pump on the said<\/p>\n
land in dispute.    The sale deed in question was signed by the<\/p>\n
defendant as an attesting witness. He never challenged the said<\/p>\n
sale deed. Ex.P-6 is the copy of the lease deed. The said lease<\/p>\n
deed is a registered document. As per the same, the land in dispute<\/p>\n
was given on lease to the defendant for fifteen years i.e. from<\/p>\n
10.8.1984 to 9.8.1999.     After expiry of the said lease deed, the<\/p>\n
possession of the land was liable to be handed over to the plaintiff by<\/p>\n
the defendant.     It has been observed by the learned Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge in the impugned judgment that in the suit filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff bearing No.496 of 1984, the plaintiff had pleaded that the<\/p>\n
land was exclusively purchased by him vide sale deed dated<\/p>\n
7.8.1984 and thereafter, he entered into a partnership with the<\/p>\n
defendant on 8.2.1985 and the shares of the parties in business were<\/p>\n
to the extent of 50% each. Hence, he was entitled to get share in the<\/p>\n
property made by the defendant while running the petrol pump.
\n R.S.A.No. 3344 of 2008 (O&M)                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
           Written statement was filed by the defendant in the said<\/p>\n
suit and execution of the partnership deed was denied.         It was<\/p>\n
averred that the land was, in fact, purchased by the defendant by<\/p>\n
taking a loan of Rs.30,000\/- from Tilak Raj and the partnership deed<\/p>\n
might have been got fraudulently scribed by Tilak Raj as defendant<\/p>\n
had signed certain documents for security purposes.       During the<\/p>\n
pendency of the said suit, another suit was filed by plaintiff bearing<\/p>\n
No.291 dated 24.8.1989 for recovery. The amount of Rs.10,800\/-<\/p>\n
was held to be recoverable by the plaintiff by the trial Court but in<\/p>\n
appeal, it was held that the same would be subject to the decision of<\/p>\n
suit No.496 of 1984. However, the present suit has been filed for<\/p>\n
eviction after the expiry of the lease period. Hence, both the Courts<\/p>\n
below rightly held that the present suit was maintainable. The suit of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff regarding recovery of mesne profits was also rightly<\/p>\n
decreed by the Courts below from the date of filing of the suit till<\/p>\n
actual delivery of possession of the land in dispute as the defendant<\/p>\n
has remained in possession of the suit land after the expiry of the<\/p>\n
lease period.\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
\nSeptember 02, 2009
\nanita\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Randhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar on 2 September, 2009 R.S.A.No. 3344 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3344 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.9.2009 Randhir Singh and another ……Appellants Versus Suresh Kumar …….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. […]<\/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-268053","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRandhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar 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\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Randhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2\" \/>\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=\"2016-06-09T22:51:44+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\\\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Randhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar on 2 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-09T22:51:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":1914,\"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\\\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Randhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar 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\":\"2016-06-09T22:51:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Randhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar 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":"Randhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar 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\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Randhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar on 2 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2","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":"2016-06-09T22:51:44+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\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Randhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar on 2 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-09T22:51:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2"},"wordCount":1914,"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\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2","name":"Randhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar 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":"2016-06-09T22:51:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/randhir-singh-and-another-vs-suresh-kumar-on-2-september-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Randhir Singh And Another vs Suresh Kumar 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\/268053","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=268053"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268053\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268053"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268053"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268053"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}