{"id":37141,"date":"1962-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-09-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962"},"modified":"2016-01-06T18:44:00","modified_gmt":"2016-01-06T13:14:00","slug":"gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962","title":{"rendered":"Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1917, \t\t  1963 SCR  Supl. (1)  55<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Subbarao<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Subbarao, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nGURBAKSH SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNIKKA SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/09\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nBENCH:\nSUBBARAO, K.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1963 AIR 1917\t\t  1963 SCR  Supl. (1)  55\n\n\nACT:\nSecond\tAppeal--Failure\t of first appellate  court  to\tgive\nfinding\t  on   question\t of  title--Interference   by\tHigh\nCourt--Entry   in   revenue   records--Presumption   as\t  to\ncorrectness--Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of  1908),\ns. 100--Panjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punj.17 of 1887), ss.\n37 and 44.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nTeja  Singh  and Jhandha Singh were  co-sharers\t in  certain\nagricultural land.  They partitioned the land taking 1 and 7\nshares respectively and applied for mutation of names to the\nrevenue authorities.  In the mutation by mistake the  entire\nland  was  shown  against  the\tname  of  Teja\tSingh.\t  On\ndiscovering the mistake jhandha Singh applied for correction\nof the entry.  During the pendency of these proceedings Teja\nSingh  died  and his brother and heir Mula  Singh  sold\t the\nentire land in favour of the appellant.\t Mula Singh appeared\nbefore the revenue authorities and admitted the mistake.  On\nthis admission and on the report of an enquiry made into the\nmatter\tby  a subordinate revenue  officer  the\t authorities\ncorrected  the mistake and the correct shares of Teja  Singh\nand jhandha Singh were shown as 1\/8 and 7\/8.  The  appellant\nfiled  a suit for declaration of his exclusive title to\t the\nland.\tThe  trial court decreed the suit holding  that\t the\ncorrected mutation entry which was made on the admission  of\nMula  Singh after he had already sold the property  was\t not\nproperly  made.\t On appeal the first appellate court  upheld\nthe  decree,  holding  that Gurbaksh Singh  was\t a  bonafide\npurchaser  in good faith but without giving any\t finding  on\nthe  question  of title.  In second appeal  the\t High  Court\nreversed the findings and dismissed the suit.  The appellant\ncontended  that\t the High Court had no jurisdiction  to\t set\naside concurrent findings of fact in second appeal and\tthat\nno presumption could arise in favour of the corrected entry.\nHeld,  that the High Court was justified in  interfering  in\nsecond\tappeal\tas the first appellate court  had  given  no\nfinding\t on  the question of title.  The  finding  that\t the\nappellant  was\ta bonafide purchaser in good faith  was\t not\nbased  upon any evidence and the onus was on the  transferee\nto  show that the transferor was the ostensible owner.\t The\nappellant  had full knowledge of the defect in the title  of\nMula Singh.\n56\nHeld,  further,\t that  the presumption under s.\t 44  of\t the\nPunjab\tLand Revenue Act arose that the corrected entry\t was\ntrue as the entry was made in accordance with law.   Section\n37  provided that such an entry could be made in  accordance\nwith facts proved or admitted to have occurred.\t Though Mula\nSingh's\t admission after he had parted with the interest  in\nthe property, could not have been relied upon, the entry was\nmade in accordance with the facts proved before the  revenue\nauthorities by the report of the subordinate revenue officer\nwhich  recited\tthe,  terms  of\t the  partition\t also.\t The\nappellant   did\t not  adduce  any  evidence  to\t rebut\t the\npresumption.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1960.<br \/>\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated<br \/>\nNovember  4, 1955, of the Punjab High Court in R. S. A.\t No.<br \/>\n493 of 1950.\n<\/p>\n<p>K.   C. Sarpal, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for appellant.<br \/>\nAnant Ram Whig and J. B. Agarwal, for respondent No. 1.<br \/>\n1962.\tSeptember  14.\t The  judgment\tof  the\t Court\t was<br \/>\ndelivered by<br \/>\nSUBBA RAO, J.-This appeal by special leave is filed  against<br \/>\nthe  judgment  and decree of the High Court  of\t Punjab,  at<br \/>\nChandigarh,  in Second Appeal No. 493 of 1950 setting  aside<br \/>\nthe  order  of the Subordinate judge,  Amritsar,  confirming<br \/>\nthat  of  the  Revenue\tOfficer,  Amritsar,  decreeing\t the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>The subject-matter of the appeal is land measuring 9  kanals<br \/>\nand  2 marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 292 and 296 in  mauza\t Kot<br \/>\nSyed  Mahmud,in\t the  District\tof  Amritsar;  the  previous<br \/>\ncorresponding  Khasra  Nos. of the land were  324  and\t328.<br \/>\nThis  land  formed part of a larger  area  which  originally<br \/>\nbelonged to a number of co-sharers, including Teja Singh and<br \/>\njhandha\t Singh.\t  There was a partition among the  said\t co-<br \/>\nsharers and pursuant to that partition, on April 20, 1929 an<br \/>\napplication was filed before the Revenue Authorities<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">57<\/span><br \/>\nfor  mutation of the names in accordance with the  terms  of<br \/>\nthe  partition; and the petition was signed by all  the\t co-<br \/>\nsharers\t including  Teja Singh and jhandha  Singh.   It\t was<br \/>\nstated\tin the petition, marked as Ex.D-6 in the case,\tthat<br \/>\nin  respect of the said Khasra numbers one share  should  be<br \/>\nentered\t in the name of Teja Singh and 7 shares in the\tname<br \/>\nof  jhandha Singh.  This fact is not admitted.\tBut  in\t the<br \/>\nmutation  that\twas effected on August 26, 1929\t the  entire<br \/>\nextent\tof  the said Khasra numbers was shown  against\tTeja<br \/>\n&#8216;Singh\talone.\tThe mutation number was 960.  On August\t 10,<br \/>\n1934,  jhandha Singh, discovering the mistake  committed  in<br \/>\nthe  revenue record, applied to the Revenue Authorities\t for<br \/>\ncorrecting  the\t said  mistake.\t  The  Revenue\t Authorities<br \/>\nenquired  into the matter from August 10, 1934,\t to  October\n<\/p>\n<p>31.  1935.  The record of that enquiry discloses  that\tMula<br \/>\nSingh,\tthe brother of Teja Singh-Teja Singh died  and\tMula<br \/>\nSingh was his heir-admitted the mistake made in the  revenue<br \/>\nrecord\tbefore the concerned authorities.  That apart,\tthey<br \/>\nhad  before  them  a  report  of  the  enquiry\tmade  by   a<br \/>\nsubordinate  officer of the revenue department\ttracing\t the<br \/>\nhistory\t of  the said Khasra numbers and  &#8216;also\t giving\t the<br \/>\nrelevant facts, namely, the partition between the co-sharers<br \/>\nand  the  joint Application filed by them  for\tmutation  of<br \/>\ntheir names in respect of the plots allotted to each one  of<br \/>\nthem.\tOn the material so-placed before them,\tthe  Revenue<br \/>\nAuthorities corrected the mistake, and against mutation ,No.<br \/>\n1490  the  correct shares of Teja Singh and  Jhandha  Singh,<br \/>\nnamely, 1\/8 and 7\/8 respectively were given.  On October 24,<br \/>\n1934,  i.e., after jhandha ,Singh had filed the\t application<br \/>\nfor  correcting the mutation No. 960, Mula Singh executed  a<br \/>\nsale deed conveying the said land bearing Khasra numbers 324<br \/>\nand 328 in favour of Gurbaksh Singh, the appellant, i.e., on<br \/>\nthe  very  date\t when Mula Singh had to\t appear\t before\t the<br \/>\nRevenue Authorities.  The appellant obtained a security bond<br \/>\nfrom Mula Singh to indemnify him against any loss that might<br \/>\nbe caused to him in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">58<\/span><br \/>\nrespect\t of the said property; he also paid the bulk of\t the<br \/>\nconsideration  only on October 22, 1937, i.e.,\tafter  three<br \/>\nyears  of the sale deed. jhandha Singh in his turn sold\t his<br \/>\n7\/8 share in the said Khasra numbers, along with others,  to<br \/>\nGopal  Singh  from whom Nikka Singh, the  first\t respondent,<br \/>\npurchased  the said share by a sale deed dated\tOctober\t 27,<br \/>\n1936.  The appellant filed a suit under s. 117 of the Punjab<br \/>\nLand  Revenue  Act, 1887, out of which\tthe  present  appeal<br \/>\narises,\t in  the  revenue court for  a\tdeclaration  of\t his<br \/>\nexclusive title to the said two Khasra numbers, and in\tthat<br \/>\nsuit Nikka Singh, the first respondent, and Mula Singh,\t the<br \/>\nsecond respondent, were the defendants.\t The suit has had  a<br \/>\nchequered  career and it. is not necessary to trace it.\t  It<br \/>\nwould  be  enough  if  we start with  the  decision  of\t the<br \/>\nSubordinate judge dated February 14, 1949, to whose file the<br \/>\nsuit  was transferred from the file of the revenue court  by<br \/>\nthe  District judge after it was remanded by the High  Court<br \/>\non  an\tearlier\t occasion.  The\t learned  Subordinate  judge<br \/>\nexpressed his opinion on the relevant issue thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t       &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;   so far as the land in suit  is<br \/>\n\t      concerned.,   Mula  Singh had sold it  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      plaintiff\t on  24th  October,  1934,  and\t any<br \/>\n\t      admission\t by  him made on 10th  August,\t1936<br \/>\n\t      would not affect the plaintiff.  Under Section<br \/>\n\t      37 of the Land Revenue Act, a mutation can  be<br \/>\n\t      based either on facts proved or admitted.\t  No<br \/>\n\t      facts  had been proved before the Officer\t who<br \/>\n\t      attested mutation No. 1490, and Mula Singh was<br \/>\n\t      nobody to admit any facts in relation to\tland<br \/>\n\t      which  he\t had sold two years  before  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      plaintiff.    The\t mutation  entry  1490\t was<br \/>\n\t      therefore not properly made and I decide issue<br \/>\n\t      No. 11 accordingly.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It  will  be seen from the aforesaid observations  that\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t  Subordinate  Judge  based  his  finding   on\t the<br \/>\nassumption that the admission of Mula Singh<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">59<\/span><br \/>\ncould  not  bind the appellant who  purchased  his  property<br \/>\nbefore the said admission and that there was no the mutation<br \/>\nentry  No.  1490.   On appeal the  learned  District  judge,<br \/>\nthough\the made certain observations indicating his line  of<br \/>\nthought,  did not give any definite finding on the  question<br \/>\nof  title, but he dismissed the appeal on the  finding\tthat<br \/>\nthe appellant was a bona fide purchaser in good faith.\t The<br \/>\nfirst  respondent  preferred  a second appeal  to  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\t The  High  Court held that the\t correction  of\t the<br \/>\nearlier\t mutation No. 960 was made with the consent of\tboth<br \/>\nthe  parties  and  there is a presumption  attached  to\t the<br \/>\ncorrectness of the later mutation and that the appellant was<br \/>\nfully  cognizant of the real state of affairs, namely,\tthat<br \/>\nMula  Singh had only 1\/8 share in the said  Khasra  numbers.<br \/>\nOn  those  findings, the decree of the\tlearned\t Subordinate<br \/>\njudge  was set aside and the plaintiff&#8217;s suit was  dismissed<br \/>\nwith costs throughout.\tHence the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned\t counsel  for  the appellant raised  before  us\t the<br \/>\nfollowing  points:  (1) The High Court has  no\tjurisdiction<br \/>\nunder ss. 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure to\t set<br \/>\naside  concurrent  findings  arrived at\t by  the  two  lower<br \/>\ncourts. (2) Under s. 37 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act there<br \/>\nis a presumption in favour of an entry in the revenue record<br \/>\nif  it\tis  made  in accordance with  the  facts  proved  or<br \/>\nadmitted  to have occurred; but, as in the present case\t the<br \/>\nentry was corrected on the admission of Mula Singh after  he<br \/>\ntransferred  his  interest in favour of the  appellant,\t the<br \/>\nsaid  admission could not constitute a legal basis  for\t the<br \/>\nsaid  entry and therefore no presumption under that  section<br \/>\nwould attach to that entry.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is true that as early as 1931 the Privy Council held that<br \/>\nthe  High  Court had no jurisdiction to entertain  a  second<br \/>\nappeal\ton the ground of erroneous findings of fact  however<br \/>\ngross  the  error may seem to be, and the  said\t ruling\t has<br \/>\nsince been followed by all the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">60<\/span><br \/>\ncourts\tin India and accepted by this Court in a  number  of<br \/>\ndecisions.  But in this case the learned District judge\t has<br \/>\nnot  given  any\t finding  on  the  question  of\t title,\t but<br \/>\ncontented  himself  to dispose of the appeal on\t the  ground<br \/>\nthat  the  appellant purchased the land in good\t faith\tfrom<br \/>\nMula  Singh.   The question of title was ,  therefore,\tleft<br \/>\nopen  and the High Court was certainly within its  right  in<br \/>\ngiving its own finding thereon.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  finding  given by the learned District judge  that\t the<br \/>\nappellant  was a bona fide purchaser in good faith  was\t not<br \/>\nbased  on the evidence in the case, but was merely  an\tipsi<br \/>\ndixit,\tNor did the District judge &#8216;consider the  impact  of<br \/>\nthe  provisions of s. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act  on<br \/>\nthe  facts of the case.\t Such a finding arrived\t at  without<br \/>\nevidence and without applying the correct principles of\t law<br \/>\ncannot\tobviously  bind the High Court.\t Section 41  of\t the<br \/>\nTransfer of Property Act reads:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8216;Where,  with\tthe  consent, express  or  implied,  of\t the<br \/>\npersons\t interested in immoveable property, a person is\t the<br \/>\nostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for<br \/>\nconsideration,\tthe transfer shall not. be voidable  on\t the<br \/>\nground\tthat the transferor was not authorised to  make\t it:<br \/>\nprovided  that the transferee, after taking reasonable\tcare<br \/>\nto  ascertain  that  the transferor had power  to  make\t the<br \/>\ntransfer, has acted in good faith.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  general  rule is that a person cannot confer  a  better<br \/>\ntitle  than  he has.  This section is an exception  to\tthat<br \/>\nrule.\tBeing  an exception, the onus certainly\t is  on\t the<br \/>\ntransferee  to show that the transferor was  the  ostensible<br \/>\nowner  of  the\tproperty  and  that  he\t had,  after  taking<br \/>\nreasonable  care to ascertain that the transferor had  power<br \/>\nto make the transfer, acted in good faith.  In this case the<br \/>\nfacts are tell-tale and they establish beyond doubt that the<br \/>\nappellant had<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">61<\/span><br \/>\nthe  knowledge\tthat  the title of  his\t transferor  was  in<br \/>\ndispute and he had taken a risk in purchasing the same.\t The<br \/>\nappellant and Mula Singh belong to the same village Kot Syed<br \/>\nMahmud.\t  Mula Singh sold his property, to the appellant  on<br \/>\nthe  very date on which he had to appear before the  Revenue<br \/>\nAuthorities.   Though the sale deed was executed on  October<br \/>\n24,  1934,  the consideration was actually paid\t only  three<br \/>\nyears  thereafter i.e., on October 22, 1937.  The  appellant<br \/>\nalso  took  a  security bond from Mula\tSingh  to  indemnify<br \/>\nhimself against any loss that might be caused to, him in the<br \/>\nproperty  in dispute.  These facts show that  the  appellant<br \/>\nhad knowledge of the defect in the title of Mula Singh.\t  It<br \/>\nis, therefore, not possible to hold that he had purchased it<br \/>\nin  good  faith.   The\tHigh Court,  having  regard  to\t the<br \/>\naforesaid  circumstances, held that the appellant knew\tthat<br \/>\nthe  transaction was in respect of a property of  which\t the<br \/>\ntitle  was  extremely doubtful.\t There\tare  no\t permissible<br \/>\ngrounds\t for  challenging the correctness  of  that  finding<br \/>\nbefore us in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution.<br \/>\nNor  do\t we  see  any merits in\t the  contention  that\t..no<br \/>\npresumption can be drawn in favour of the correctness of the<br \/>\nimpugned entry in the revenue record on the ground that\t the<br \/>\ncondition  given in the section are not satisfied.   Section<br \/>\n37 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act reads:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Entries\tin  records-of-rights or  in  annual<br \/>\n\t      records, except entries made in annual records<br \/>\n\t      by  patwaris  under clause (a) of\t section  35<br \/>\n\t      with  respect  to undisputed  acquisitions  of<br \/>\n\t      interest\treferred to in that  section,  shall<br \/>\n\t      not be varied in. subsequent records otherwise<br \/>\n\t      than by-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)  making entries in accordance\t with  facts<br \/>\n\t      proved or admitted to have occurred;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)  making such entries as are agreed  to  by<br \/>\n\t      all  the\tparties interested  therein  or\t are<br \/>\n\t\t\t    supported<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">62<\/span><br \/>\n\t      by a decree or order binding on those parties;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      x\t\t   x\t       x\tx<br \/>\nSection 44 says that an entry made in a record-of-rights  in<br \/>\naccordance with the law for the time being in force or in an<br \/>\nannual\trecord\tin accordance with the\tprovisions  of\tthat<br \/>\nChapter\t and the rules thereunder, shall be presumed  to  be<br \/>\ntrue until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully<br \/>\nsubstituted  therefor.\tIf the entry No.  1490\tsubstituting<br \/>\nentry No. 960 had been made in strict compliance with S.  37<br \/>\nof  the Punjab Land Revenue Act, it cannot be disputed\tthat<br \/>\nthere would be a presumption that the new entry was lawfully<br \/>\nsubstituted for the old.  In that event the old entry should<br \/>\nyield  to  the\tnew entry.  This  presumption  is  no  doubt<br \/>\nrebuttable.   There  is force in the contention\t of  learned<br \/>\ncounsel that Mula Singh, having parted with the interest  in<br \/>\nthe property, could not have admitted the correctness of the<br \/>\nnew  entry or agreed to have the old entry corrected in\t the<br \/>\nmanner done so as to bind a purchaser.\tBut that  contention<br \/>\ndoes  not avail him in the present case as we are  satisfied<br \/>\non a perusal of the record that mutation entry 1490 had been<br \/>\nmade in accordance with the facts proved before the  Revenue<br \/>\nAuthorities.   There were the following pieces\tof  evidence<br \/>\nbefore\tthe Revenue Authorities, among others: (1)  evidence<br \/>\nof  Mula  Singh; (2) the report of the\tsubordinate  revenue<br \/>\nofficer with all the connected annexures, including Ex.\t  D-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>6, wherein the terms of the partition were recited.  On\t the<br \/>\nsaid evidence the Revenue Authorities corrected the entry in<br \/>\nthe record in the manner they did.  It must, there fore,  be<br \/>\nheld  that  the provisions of s. 37(a) of  the\tPunjab\tLand<br \/>\nRevenue\t Act were satisfied.  If so, there is a\t presumption<br \/>\nthat  the  later entry was correct.  The appellant  did\t not<br \/>\nadduce\tany evidence to rebut the said presumption.  On\t the<br \/>\nother hand, Ex.\t D-6, the application dated April 20,  1929,<br \/>\nfor  mutation of names in the revenue record, signed by\t all<br \/>\nthe cosharers contained the following recital:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 63<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Entries with respect to the following  Khasra<br \/>\n\t      Nos. may be made in the revenue papers in\t the<br \/>\n\t      name  of\tTeja Singh, co-sharer No. 5  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      tune  of one share and Bhai jhandha Singh\t co-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>\t      sharer No. 2, to the tune of seven shares: 324<br \/>\n\t      3.16, 328\/5.06 etc.<br \/>\nThe  High Court was, therefore, right in holding that  there<br \/>\nwas a presumption in favour of the correctness of the  entry<br \/>\nand  the  appellant  had  failed to  rebut  the\t same.\t The<br \/>\njudgment  of the High Court is correct and the appeal  fails<br \/>\nand is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1963 AIR 1917, 1963 SCR Supl. (1) 55 Author: K Subbarao Bench: Subbarao, K. PETITIONER: GURBAKSH SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: NIKKA SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/09\/1962 BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. IMAM, SYED JAFFER AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA MUDHOLKAR, J.R. CITATION: [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37141","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962 - 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\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962\" \/>\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=\"1962-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-06T13:14:00+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-06T13:14:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962\"},\"wordCount\":2271,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962\",\"name\":\"Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-06T13:14:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962 - 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\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-06T13:14:00+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962","datePublished":"1962-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-06T13:14:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962"},"wordCount":2271,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962","name":"Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-06T13:14:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaksh-singh-vs-nikka-singh-on-14-september-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gurbaksh Singh vs Nikka Singh on 14 September, 1962"}]},{"@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\/37141","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=37141"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37141\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37141"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37141"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37141"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}