{"id":27276,"date":"2009-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-10-19T06:32:48","modified_gmt":"2017-10-19T01:02:48","slug":"bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>R.S.A. No. 2668 of 2006 (O&amp;M)\n                                                                         -1-\n\n    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                   CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                               R.S.A. No. 2668 of 2006 (O&amp;M)\n                               Date of decision: 29.1.2009\n\n\nBal Kishan alias Kishan\n                                                               ....Appellant\n\n\n                     Versus\n\n\nDheera @ Randhir and others\n                                                             ....Respondents\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA\n\nPresent: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,\n         for the appellant.\n\n           Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate,\n           for respondent No. 1.\n\n                     *****\n<\/pre>\n<p>VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)<\/p>\n<p>           This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments<\/p>\n<p>and decree dated 29.11.2005 and 27.5.2006 passed by the learned Courts<\/p>\n<p>below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff\/respondent for mandatory<\/p>\n<p>injunction with a consequential relief of permanent injunction stands<\/p>\n<p>decreed.\n<\/p>\n<p>           The plaintiff\/respondent brought a suit on the plea that during<\/p>\n<p>the consolidation procedings, he was allotted a bara measuring<\/p>\n<p>33&#8217;x40.9&#8243; in village Dholgarh, Tehsil and District Karnal.<\/p>\n<p>           The case set up was that between the baras of the parties, a six<\/p>\n<p>feet wide street had been left at the time of allotment. Out of the said<\/p>\n<p>gali, the appellant\/defendants encroached upon 3 feet thereby reducing<br \/>\n R.S.A. No. 2668 of 2006 (O&amp;M)<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                        -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the width to half.      Mandatory injunction was sought directing the<\/p>\n<p>appellant\/defendants to remove the encroachment from the street. It was<\/p>\n<p>further the case set up by the plaintiff that the appellant\/defendants were<\/p>\n<p>adamant to further encroach upon three feet of the land of the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiff\/respondent and thus, relief of prohibitory injunction was also<\/p>\n<p>claimed.\n<\/p>\n<p>           The suit was contested by the appellant\/defendants, wherein<\/p>\n<p>preliminary objection was taken that the plaintiff had not locus standi to<\/p>\n<p>file and maintain the suit. Plea was also raised that the plaintiff had not<\/p>\n<p>come to Court with clean hands. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to<\/p>\n<p>entertain and try the suit was also challenged.<\/p>\n<p>           On merit, it was denied that there was any encroachment by<\/p>\n<p>the appellant\/defendants. It was claimed that khor and boundary wall<\/p>\n<p>along with hand pump was installed by the defendants and it was still in<\/p>\n<p>existence. The construction alleged to be encroachment was said to be<\/p>\n<p>25 years old. The defendants asserted that they wanted to demolish the<\/p>\n<p>old construction by raising new construction at the same place. The<\/p>\n<p>width of the gali was 5&#8242;-6&#8243; and not 6&#8242;, as claimed by the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiff\/respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>           The learned Courts below on appreciaion of evidence have<\/p>\n<p>recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has encroached<\/p>\n<p>upon 3&#8242; of the street and consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff<\/p>\n<p>stands decreed.\n<\/p>\n<p>           The learned counsel for the appellant raised following<\/p>\n<p>substantial questions of law arise for consideration by this Court: &#8211;<\/p>\n<p>           &#8220;1.    Whether the judgment and decree passed by<br \/>\n R.S.A. No. 2668 of 2006 (O&amp;M)<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                               -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                     the learned Courts below is outcome of<br \/>\n                     misreading of evidence brought on record<br \/>\n                     and, therefore, perverse?\n<\/p>\n<p>               2.    Whether the learned Courts below were<br \/>\n                     justified in rejecting the documentary evidence<br \/>\n                     placed on record by way of Ex. DW-3\/3 and<br \/>\n                     rely upon the report Ex. P-2, which was not<br \/>\n                     proved in accordance with law?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>            This Court on 28.7.2006 was pleased to pass the following<\/p>\n<p>order: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                     &#8220;After arguing the case for some time, learned<br \/>\n                     counsel for the appellant contends that even if<br \/>\n                     the case of the respondents is accepted in toto,<br \/>\n                     the house constructed by the appellant in his<br \/>\n                     bara cannot be demolished so long as a street<br \/>\n                     with six feet width is provided and made<br \/>\n                     operational in front thereof. It is contended<br \/>\n                     that if the report Ex.P2 is accepted, still only a<br \/>\n                     decree of permanent injunction can be passed<br \/>\n                     and not that of the mandatory injunction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                     He contends that the aforesaid limited<br \/>\n                     clarification may be made by this Court by<br \/>\n                     calling upon the respondents at the cost of the<br \/>\n                     appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                     Subject to deposit of Rs.10,000\/- by the<br \/>\n                     appellant within two weeks from today, let<br \/>\n                     notice of motion issue to the respondents for<br \/>\n                     19.9.2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                     Dasti only.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                     To be shown in the urgent cases.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>             Sum of Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees ten thousand only) stands<\/p>\n<p>deposited, which the respondents are permitted to withdraw, from the<\/p>\n<p>Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>             The learned counsel for the plaintiff\/respondents contends the<\/p>\n<p>statement made by the appellant before this Court on 28.6.2006 and<\/p>\n<p>states     that,    in   fact,   there   is   encroachment   of    3&#8242;     by   the<\/p>\n<p>defendant\/appellant, which has to be removed and he is to be further<br \/>\n R.S.A. No. 2668 of 2006 (O&amp;M)<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                      -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>restrained from using his bara as passage.<\/p>\n<p>          In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiff\/respondents, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that<\/p>\n<p>in the present case, the substantial questions of law, as framed, deserve<\/p>\n<p>to be answered in favour of the appellant, as the learned Courts below<\/p>\n<p>have ignored Ex. DW-3\/3 i.e. the report of Patwari, which was prepared<\/p>\n<p>on the spot in the presence of the parties and stood duly proved.<\/p>\n<p>          This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot<\/p>\n<p>be accepted. The learned Courts below were right in holding that no<\/p>\n<p>reliance could be placed on Ex. DW-3\/3 as it was contrary to the case set<\/p>\n<p>up by the defendant\/appellant. The site plan Ex. DW-3\/3 prepared by<\/p>\n<p>DW-3 was not as per the site plan, attached with written statement by the<\/p>\n<p>defendant, in support of his defense.\n<\/p>\n<p>          The construction and hand pump which were shown to be<\/p>\n<p>present at the spot, have not been shown. The learned Courts below<\/p>\n<p>rightly observed that DW3 did not consult the revenue record and was<\/p>\n<p>not even aware of the facts. Therefore, the report Ex. DW-3\/3 was not<\/p>\n<p>considered. The challenge to Ex. P-2, also cannot be accepted. The<\/p>\n<p>report Ex.P-2 was submitted by the Local Commisioner, appointed by<\/p>\n<p>the Court, to which neither of the parties file any objection.<\/p>\n<p>          In absence of the objections having been filed to the report of<\/p>\n<p>Local Commissioner, appointed by Court, the same was accepted and<\/p>\n<p>read in evidence. It is not correct on the part of the defendant\/appellant<\/p>\n<p>to contend that the learned Courts below wrongly relied on Ex. P2.<\/p>\n<p>          The substantial questions of law, as framed, therefore, deserve<\/p>\n<p>to be answered against the appellant\/defendant, as it cannot be said that<br \/>\n R.S.A. No. 2668 of 2006 (O&amp;M)<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                  -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is outcome<\/p>\n<p>of misreading of evidence or is outcome of taking into consideration<\/p>\n<p>inadmissible evidence as contended.\n<\/p>\n<p>         No merit.\n<\/p>\n<p>         Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                               (Vinod K. Sharma)<br \/>\n                                                    Judge<br \/>\nJanuary 29, 2009<br \/>\nR.S.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 2009 R.S.A. No. 2668 of 2006 (O&amp;M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2668 of 2006 (O&amp;M) Date of decision: 29.1.2009 Bal Kishan alias Kishan &#8230;.Appellant Versus Dheera @ Randhir and others [&hellip;]<\/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-27276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-19T01:02:48+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-19T01:02:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1030,\"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\\\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-19T01:02:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 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":"Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-19T01:02:48+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-19T01:02:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009"},"wordCount":1030,"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\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009","name":"Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-19T01:02:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bal-kishan-alias-kishan-vs-dheera-randhir-and-others-on-29-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bal Kishan Alias Kishan vs Dheera @ Randhir And Others on 29 January, 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\/27276","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=27276"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27276\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}