{"id":33512,"date":"2008-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008"},"modified":"2015-04-08T20:06:23","modified_gmt":"2015-04-08T14:36:23","slug":"darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Darshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Darshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 2008<\/div>\n
       In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n                                 ...\n\n\n                                        RSA No. 362 of 1993\n\n                                        Date of decision: October 1,2008\n\nDarshan Singh and others                                       ..Appellants.\n\n                                 Versus\n\nGurbax Singh and others\n                                                               ..Respondent\n\nCoram:        Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg\n\nPresent:      Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate\n              for the appellants.\n              Mr.P.S.Thiara, Advocate\n              for the respondents.\n                        ...\n\nRakesh Kumar Garg,J.\n<\/pre>\n
              This judgment shall dispose of two connected second appeals, i.e.,<\/p>\n
RSA No.362 of 1993- Darshan Singh etc. Versus Gurbax Singh etc. and RSA<\/p>\n
No.605 of 1993- Gurbax Singh etc. Versus Darshan Singh etc.(arising out of CA<\/p>\n
No.64 of 1990 – Darshan Singh etc. Versus Gurbax Singh etc. and Civil Appeal<\/p>\n
No.49 of 1990- Gurbax Singh etc. Versus Darshan Singh etc. arising out of<\/p>\n
judgment and decree dated 16.9.1986 passed by the trial Court), whereby the<\/p>\n
suit filed by the plaintiffs Darshan Singh etc. was dismissed and the defendant-<\/p>\n
respondents were held entitled to possession of the disputed land measuring 45<\/p>\n
kanals 18 marlas by way of counter claim.\n<\/p>\n
              The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
defendant No.5 are the owners in possession of the land measuring 60 Kanals 4<\/p>\n
Marlas bearing Khata Khatauni No.47\/139 to 142, 235\/479, 273\/532, 147\/250<\/p>\n
Killa No.31\/21\/7, 76\/25\/1, 79\/4, 5\/1, 6, 15, 206, 39\/8\/2, 9\/23, 79\/5\/3, 5\/4,<\/p>\n
29\/8\/3\/2, 39\/8\/1 situated in village Jalal Ushma, Tehsil Baba Bakala District<\/p>\n
Amritsar as entered in the jamabandi for the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and in the<\/p>\n
alternative, plaintiff No.1 is in possession of the property as a tenant and for<\/p>\n
permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 to 4 from interfering in their<\/p>\n
possession.\n<\/p>\n
              The brief facts as stated in the plaint are that Wassan Singh son of<\/p>\n
Santa Singh resident of village Jalal Ushma who was owner of the land in<\/p>\n
dispute died issueless on 12.2.1983. The case of the plaintiffs is that Darshan<\/p>\n
Singh, plaintiff No.1 during the life time of Wassan Singh used to cultivate the<\/p>\n
suit land as tenant under him. The plaintiff and Dalip Singh, defendant No.5 are<\/p>\n
the only heirs of Wassan Singh being his collaterals and as such after the death<\/p>\n
of Wassan Singh, they became the owners of the land. Defendant Nos.1 to 3<\/p>\n
asserted that they had purchased the land from Wassan Singh deceased. The<\/p>\n
case of the plaintiff is that Wassan Singh did not sell the land to the defendant<\/p>\n
and if there is any sale deed in their favour, the same is illegal, void and<\/p>\n
inoperative as Wassan Singh was very old, his eye sight was poor and he was<\/p>\n
addicted to opium and the sale deed, if any, was procured illegally from him.<\/p>\n
Since defendant Nos.1 to 4 are threatening to take possession of the land, thus<\/p>\n
the necessity arose to file the suit. It is also prayed that in case the defendants<\/p>\n
are held to be in possession of the some land, then by way of an alternative<\/p>\n
relief, the same be got restored to them.\n<\/p>\n
             On the other hand, the version of the defendants is that Wassan<\/p>\n
Singh himself was in cultivating possession of the land as owner during his life<\/p>\n
time and the possession of the land was delivered to them by Wassan Singh at<\/p>\n
the time , the sale was effected i.e., on 27.1.1983, which was sold to them for<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs.49000\/- by Wassan Singh who was perfectly in sound and<\/p>\n
disposing mind and in fact they were dispossessed from the land forcibly during<\/p>\n
the pendency of the suit except Khasra Nos.29\/8\/3\/2 and 29\/9. The defendants<\/p>\n
claimed the possession of the land by way of counter claim. It was also averred<\/p>\n
that the suit in respect of Khasra No. 29\/28\/3\/2 and 29\/9 is not maintainable.<\/p>\n
             From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were<\/p>\n
framed:-\n<\/p>\n
             1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land, If so, to<\/p>\n
             what effect ?OPP.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              2. Whether the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased<\/p>\n
             Wassan Singh and are entitled to file the present suit ?OPP.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             3. Whether the plaintiffs or any of them is a tenant over the land in<\/p>\n
             the suit ?OPP.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             4. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee<\/p>\n
             and jurisdiction ?OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             5. Whether Wassan Singh had executed any sale deed in favour of<\/p>\n
             defendants for consideration on 27.1.1988 ?OPD.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             6. If issue No.5 is proved, whether the same is illegal,void abinitio<\/p>\n
             and in operative in law?OPP<\/p>\n
Additional issues:\n<\/p>\n
              1. Whether by way of alternative relief, the plaintiffs are entitled to<\/p>\n
              the possession of the land ?OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              2. Whether the defendants are within their right to have counter<\/p>\n
              claim as alleged in the amended written statement ?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              3. If Addl. Issue No.2 is proved, then whether defendants are<\/p>\n
              entitled to the possession of suit land except Khasra No.29\/8\/3\/2,<\/p>\n
              29\/9 and 39\/8\/17 ?OPD.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Issue Nos.1 and 3 were partly decided in favour of the plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
Darshan Singh plaintiff was held to be a tenant on a part of the disputed land<\/p>\n
while plaintiffs were held to be trespassers in other portion of the land. Issue<\/p>\n
No.2 was held against the plaintiffs. Issue No.4 was decided in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs. Under issue Nos.5 and 6, defendant-vendees          were held to have<\/p>\n
validly purchased the land from Wassan Singh vide sale deed executed on<\/p>\n
27.1.1983 Ex.D1.\n<\/p>\n
             It was further held under additional issues that the plaintiffs are not<\/p>\n
entitled to the possession of the land as alternative relief. Additional Issue Nos.2<\/p>\n
and 3 were also decided against the defendants. As a result of the findings of<\/p>\n
the trial Court on various issues, Darshan Singh, plaintiff No.1 was held to be in<\/p>\n
possession of the part of the disputed land as a tenant, while plaintiffs were held
\n to be in possession of some other land also as tresspassers. In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was partly decreed and vendees-<\/p>\n
respondents were retrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs in the<\/p>\n
land in their possession except in due course of law vide judgment and decree<\/p>\n
dated 16.9.1986 of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
             Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial<\/p>\n
Court, the parties preferred separate appeals against the same. In CA No.64 of<\/p>\n
1990 – Darshan Singh etc. Versus Gurbax Singh etc. filed by the plaintiffs, they<\/p>\n
claimed to be owners in possession of the disputed land, having inherited the<\/p>\n
same from Wassan Singh deceased being his nearest legal heirs claiming that<\/p>\n
the sale deed in favour of defendants was illegal and not binding on their rights.<\/p>\n
Darshan Singh plaintiff also claimed to be the tenant of the disputed land. In the<\/p>\n
counter appeal No.49 of 1990- Gurbax Singh etc. Versus Darshan Singh etc.,<\/p>\n
the defendants claimed that they were the owners of the land in dispute on the<\/p>\n
basis of the sale deed Ex.D1 and the       tenancy of Darshan Singh was also<\/p>\n
denied. It was also argued that the counter claim set up by the defendants were<\/p>\n
wrongly denied and they were entitled to possession of the land.<\/p>\n
             The lower Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs were the nearest<\/p>\n
collaterals of Wassan Singh deceased, but Wassan Singh deceased was<\/p>\n
survived by his widow Gurdev Kaur and in her presence the plaintiffs could not<\/p>\n
claim any right or interest in the estate of Wassan Singh deceased. It was also<\/p>\n
found by the lower Appellate Court that though the plaintiffs may be the nearest<\/p>\n
collaterals of Wassan Singh deceased, they could not claim any right or interest<\/p>\n
in the estate of Wassan Singh deceased as the defendants had purchased the<\/p>\n
land in dispute validly vide sale deed Ex.D1 from Wassan Singh as the sale<\/p>\n
deed Ex.D1 was executed by Wassan Singh deceased in favour of the Vendee<\/p>\n
defendant genuinely and validly. The contention of Darshan Singh, plaintiff was<\/p>\n
that he was tenant on the disputed land. It was found that he was not a tenant in<\/p>\n
part of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 76\/25\/1, 79\/4, 5\/1, 5\/3, 79\/5\/4,<\/p>\n
79\/6, 79\/15. However, he was in possession of the aforesaid land measuring 45
\n kanals 18 marlas in illegal and unauthorized possession and not as a tenant and<\/p>\n
therefore, the defendants have a right to possession of this land measuring 45<\/p>\n
Kanals 18 Marlas by way of counter claim. On the basis of these findings, the<\/p>\n
lower Appellate Court dismissed Civil Appeal No.64 of 1990- Darshan Singh etc.<\/p>\n
Versus Gurbax Singh etc.. The Civil Appeal No.49 of 1990- Gurbax Singh etc.<\/p>\n
Versus Darshan Singh etc. was accepted and decree of the trial Court dated<\/p>\n
16.9.1986 was modified and a decree for possession of disputed land<\/p>\n
measuring 45 Kanals 18 Marlas comprised in Khasra Numbers 31\/21\/5(0-2),<\/p>\n
76\/25\/1(6-10), 79\/4(5-8), 5\/1(5-8)\/ 6(10-2), 15(6-5), 306(2-2), 39\/8\/2(3-16), 39\/9<\/p>\n
(4-0), 79\/5\/3(-15), 79\/5\/4 (1-0), as mentioned in the head note of the written<\/p>\n
statement, was passed in favour of the defendant-appellants by way of counter<\/p>\n
claim.\n<\/p>\n
               Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the<\/p>\n
lower Appellate Court in both the appeals, the plaintiffs have filed these two<\/p>\n
appeals challenging the same in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
               Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the<\/p>\n
defendants had claimed possession of the land in dispute by way of counter<\/p>\n
claim which was filed much after filing of the written statement which is not<\/p>\n
permissible in law. It is further argued by the counsel for the appellant that the<\/p>\n
counter claim can be made by the defendants only in the suit pertaining to<\/p>\n
money matters and not in the suits for declaration or possession of the<\/p>\n
immovable property and therefore the lower Appellate Court has erred at law<\/p>\n
while granting the decree of possession of the suit land to the defendant-<\/p>\n
respondents.\n<\/p>\n
               During the course of hearing, it was also found that the appellants<\/p>\n
have not framed any substantial question of law in this case. However, instead of<\/p>\n
adjourning the case any further with the consent of the counsel for the parties,<\/p>\n
the following substantial question of law is framed in this appeal:-<\/p>\n
               (i) Whether counter claim can be filed after filing of written<\/p>\n
               statement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (ii) Whether counter claim is permissible only in money matters and<\/p>\n
              cannot be filed in suits for declarations and suit for possession etc.<\/p>\n
             I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the<\/p>\n
record.\n<\/p>\n
             The defendant-respondents have claimed the suit land on the basis<\/p>\n
of sale deed dated 27.1.1983 in their favour executed by Wassan Singh. The<\/p>\n
possession of the said disputed land is also claimed to be delivered to them<\/p>\n
under the aforesaid    sale deed. It is also a matter of record that during the<\/p>\n
pendency of suit, it was claimed by them that plaintiff-appellant dispossessed the<\/p>\n
defendants from the disputed land in illegal manner under the garb of stay orders<\/p>\n
issued by the court in the case and claimed to be in possession of the land<\/p>\n
comprised in Khasra No.29\/8\/3\/2 and 29\/9 and sought possession of the<\/p>\n
remaining disputed land purchased by them vide sale deed dated 27.1.1983 by<\/p>\n
way of counter claim under Order 8 Rule 6 C.P.C. and on the basis of this<\/p>\n
counter claim additional issue No.2 and 3 were framed by the trial Court which<\/p>\n
were to the effect whether the defendants are within their rights to have counter<\/p>\n
claim as alleged in the amended written statement.\n<\/p>\n
             It is also a matter of record that the defendants had filed their<\/p>\n
counter claim by amendment of their written statement, which was permitted to<\/p>\n
be amended by the court and the plaintiff never challenged the said amendment<\/p>\n
of written statement by the respondent and thereafter the additional issues<\/p>\n
regarding counter claim of the defendant-respondents were framed on the basis<\/p>\n
of pleadings in the written statement which includes the counter claim of the<\/p>\n
defendants and thereafter the parties were allowed to prove their case by leading<\/p>\n
evidence. Both the parties were well aware of the issues arising out of their<\/p>\n
pleadings including counter claim filed by the defendant-respondents and on<\/p>\n
conclusion of evidence, arguments were addressed on all the issues including<\/p>\n
the issues with regard to counter claim. It is also clear from the judgment of the<\/p>\n
trial court that on additional issues 2 and 3 which pertains to counter claim, the<\/p>\n
only argument raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff was to the effect that
\n the counter claim cannot be filed in a suit for declaration\/possession. No such<\/p>\n
argument regarding the filing of the counter claim after filing the written<\/p>\n
statement was raised. In any case, the law is well settled on this question as<\/p>\n
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the case of Rohit Singh &<\/p>\n
others Versus State of Bihar (now State of Jharkhand) and others 2007(1) RCR<\/p>\n
(Civil) 674, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has authoritatively held that the<\/p>\n
counter claim can be filed after filing of written statement but not after issues<\/p>\n
were framed and evidence closed.\n<\/p>\n
             Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant cited<\/p>\n
judgment of this court in case of Bank of Baroda Versus Gurcharan Singh 1986<\/p>\n
PLJ 43 to the effect that defendant cannot be allowed to file counter claim by<\/p>\n
amending written statement. The contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant is misconceived. In the aforesaid case, it was pleaded that the counter<\/p>\n
claim was to be treated as plaint and governed by the rules applicable to the<\/p>\n
plaint and the same should have been filed before filing the written statement<\/p>\n
and it was submitted that there was no proper counter claim filed by the<\/p>\n
defendants as provided under Order 8 Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n
The aforesaid judgment was considered by this Court in the case of Inder Lal<\/p>\n
Khanna Versus Krishan Lal Malhotra and others AIR 1990 (P&H) 149 and this<\/p>\n
Court observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
             ” As regards this contention, I do not find any merit therein. The<\/p>\n
             judgment referred to above has no applicability to the facts of the<\/p>\n
             present case. The plaintiff never objected as such, to the filing of<\/p>\n
             the counter-claim. Rather the necessary issues arising out of the<\/p>\n
             counter-claim were framed and the parties were allowed to lead<\/p>\n
             evidence. No prejudice has been alleged to have been caused to<\/p>\n
             the plaintiff on account of irregularity, if any in filing the counter-<\/p>\n
             claim. That being so, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to agitate in the<\/p>\n
             second appeal that there was no proper counter-claim. In the case<\/p>\n
             referred to above, it was held that the defendant could not be
\n               allowed to file counter-claim by amending the written statement,<\/p>\n
              which is not the proposition in the present case. Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
              defendants while making the counter-claim in the written statement<\/p>\n
              also paid the requisite court-fee thereon and it was duly entertained<\/p>\n
              by the trial Court.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Moreover, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rohit<\/p>\n
Singh’s case (supra), this Court in the case of Milkha Singh Versus Parshotam<\/p>\n
Dass 2007(1)RCR (Civil) 495 has laid down that in exercise of its discretion, the<\/p>\n
Court can permit at a subsequent stage also to raise plea of set off or counter<\/p>\n
claim by allowing amendment of written statement<\/p>\n
              From the record of the case, it is clear that in the present case,<\/p>\n
additional issues have been framed after amendment of the written statement<\/p>\n
which includes counter claim and the evidence in this case was led thereafter.<\/p>\n
Moreover, in the present case, the evidence has been led by both the parties on<\/p>\n
the issues arising out of the counter claim filed by the defendant-respondents.<\/p>\n
Thus no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff-appellants in this regard. The<\/p>\n
counter claim was filed by amending the written statement which was not<\/p>\n
objected to. That being so, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to agitate in the<\/p>\n
second appeal that there was no proper counter claim. Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
defendants while making the counter claim in the amended written statement<\/p>\n
also paid the requisite court fee thereon and it was duly entertained by the trial<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
              Thus, there is no force in the first contention raised by the counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
              It is useful to refer to the provisions with regard to counter claim as<\/p>\n
provided under Order 8 Rule 6-A and B of CPC which are reproduced:-<\/p>\n
              “6-A. Counter-claim by defendant.-(1) A defendant in a suit may, in<\/p>\n
              addition to his right of pleading a set off under rule 6, set up, by<\/p>\n
              way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or<\/p>\n
              claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant
\n              against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but<\/p>\n
             before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time<\/p>\n
             limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such<\/p>\n
             counter claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      Provided that such counter claim shall not exceed the<\/p>\n
             pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      (2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a<\/p>\n
             cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment<\/p>\n
             in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter<\/p>\n
             claim.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement<\/p>\n
             in answer to the counter claim of the defendant within such period<\/p>\n
             as may be fixed by the Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      (4) The counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and<\/p>\n
             governed by the rules applicable to plaints.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             6-B. Counter-claim to be stated.- Where any defendant seeks to<\/p>\n
             rely upon any ground as supporting a right of counter claim, he<\/p>\n
             shall, in his written statement, state specifically that he does so by<\/p>\n
             way of counter claim.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             In Munshi Ram and others Versus Radha Kishan (accd) and others<\/p>\n
AIR 1975 Punjab and Haryana 112, it was held by this Court that counter claim<\/p>\n
may be set up in respect of claim as to which party can bring independent<\/p>\n
action in the court in which the counter action is brought yet the counter claim<\/p>\n
need not be an action of the same nature as the original action or analogous<\/p>\n
thereto and though there is no provision in the code for making a counter claim,<\/p>\n
the court has the power to treat the counter claim as a cross suit and hear the<\/p>\n
original suit and the counter claim together if the latter is properly stamped. In<\/p>\n
Pathrose Samual and Another Versus Karumban Parameshwaran, AIR 1988<\/p>\n
Kerala 163, it was held by the Kerala High Court that counter claim need not be<\/p>\n
limited to money suits only meaning thereby that the suits of other nature were
\n also covered under the counter claim etc. In Inder Lal Khanna Versus Krishan<\/p>\n
Lal Malhotra and others AIR 1990 (P&H) 149. where the defendants set up<\/p>\n
counter claim and no objection was taken by the plaintiffs in this regard, it was<\/p>\n
held by this Court that the plea that counter claim filed by defendant was not<\/p>\n
proper inasmuch as it was not filed before the written statement cannot be raised<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff in the second appeal. The sum and substance of the afore quoted<\/p>\n
rulings is that the counter claim is not limited to money suits only and as such the<\/p>\n
counter claim can be taken up in suits of other nature.\n<\/p>\n
              Learned counsel for the appellant has not cited any judgment in<\/p>\n
support of his plea as raised by way of second substantial question of law.<\/p>\n
              On a conjoint reading of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6-A and B<\/p>\n
of C.P.C. and the judgments referred to above, it cannot be said that the remedy<\/p>\n
of counter claim is available only in the suit pertaining to suits of recovery only<\/p>\n
and thus, the counter claim can be taken up in suits of other nature including<\/p>\n
suits for declaration\/suits for possession etc.<\/p>\n
              Thus both the questions of law as framed by this Court are<\/p>\n
answered against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
              Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the findings<\/p>\n
of fact to the effect that the defendants have purchased the land in dispute<\/p>\n
validly vide sale deed Ex.P1 from Wassan Singh.\n<\/p>\n
              Thus, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby<\/p>\n
dismissed with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
October 1, 2008                                   (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)\n             nk                                          JUDGE\n  <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Darshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 2008 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 362 of 1993 Date of decision: October 1,2008 Darshan Singh and others ..Appellants. Versus Gurbax Singh and others ..Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh […]<\/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-33512","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDarshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 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\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Darshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-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=\"2008-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-08T14:36:23+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Darshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-08T14:36:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3263,\"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\\\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Darshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-08T14:36:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Darshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Darshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 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\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Darshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-08T14:36:23+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Darshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-08T14:36:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008"},"wordCount":3263,"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\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008","name":"Darshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-08T14:36:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/darshan-singh-and-others-vs-gurbax-singh-and-others-on-1-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Darshan Singh And Others vs Gurbax Singh And Others on 1 October, 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:\/\/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\/33512","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=33512"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33512\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}