{"id":46944,"date":"2008-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-02-25T13:57:11","modified_gmt":"2015-02-25T08:27:11","slug":"surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Surat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Surat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2008<\/div>\n
R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008                                         -1-\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                   AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                         ****\n                                         R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008\n                                       Date of Decision:26.09.2008\n\nSurat Singh and others\n                                                        .....Appellants\n            Vs.\n\nSatnam Singh and others\n                                                        .....Respondents\n\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL\n\nPresent:-   Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the appellants.\n                         ****\nHARBANS LAL, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            The facts which led to the filing of the suit are that Sadha<\/p>\n
Singh, father of the plaintiffs was owner of the disputed land which was a<\/p>\n
Darya Burj sub-merged in the River Markanda and was uncultivable. Sadha<\/p>\n
Singh sold his agricultural land besides the disputed land and left the<\/p>\n
Village Jhansa. He had settled at Village Sarola, Tehsil Guhla, District<\/p>\n
Kaithal after leaving Jhansa in the month of May, 1996. The plaintiffs No.1<\/p>\n
to 3 visited the disputed land and found that the same was under cultivation.<\/p>\n
They were told by the defendants that the land had been purchased by<\/p>\n
Bharawan Bai widow of Santokh Singh from Sadha Singh on 1.7.1972 for a<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs.15,000\/-, though Sadha Singh had never sold the same.<\/p>\n
Bharawan Bai along with her three sons Avtar Singh, Amar Singh, Satnam<\/p>\n
Singh and others have forged the aforesaid sale deed. Sadha Singh never<\/p>\n
executed any agreement to sell, nor he received any consideration. He had<\/p>\n
also not put his left thumb impression\/ signatures on the alleged sale deed<\/p>\n
or the agreement to sell nor had appeared before the Sub-Registrar for
\n R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008                                        -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
executing these documents.     Bharawan Bai and others got entered the<\/p>\n
mutation No.6600 dated 21.9.1972 in their names which is null and void.<\/p>\n
Bharawan Bai transferred the land measuring 3 kanal 5 marlas out of the<\/p>\n
disputed land to defendant No.12 for a consideration of Rs.1,500\/- vide sale<\/p>\n
deed No.3147 dated 9.6.1973, which is null and void and is ineffective upon<\/p>\n
the rights of the plaintiffs. Bharawan Bai through a Civil Court decree<\/p>\n
dated 18.10.1988 transferred the land measuring 87 kanal 17 marlas to her<\/p>\n
son Avtar Singh, father of defendants No.3 to 6 and others, which is null<\/p>\n
and void ab-initio. The mutation No.7424 based on the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
and decree dated 18.10.1988 is also null and void ab-initio. Avtar Singh<\/p>\n
and Satnam Singh, sons of Bharawan Bai transferred their 2\/3rd share<\/p>\n
through a Civil Court decree in favour of defendants No.3 to 6 and 8 to 10<\/p>\n
vide Civil Court decree dated 1.12.1990 and mutation No.7586 dated<\/p>\n
15.3.1991 was entered in the revenue record. This judgment and decree and<\/p>\n
subsequent revenue entries are also null and void. Out of the disputed land,<\/p>\n
the land measuring 12 kanal 6 marlas was acquired by the Government for<\/p>\n
the construction of S.Y.L. Canal. Defendant No.1 and Tara Singh had<\/p>\n
received the compensation of Rs.11,779.88 according to their share in the<\/p>\n
forged sale deed.    They are liable to pay the same to the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
Defendants No.15 to 17 have further transferred 30 marlas land out of the<\/p>\n
disputed land in favour of defendant No.11 vide Civil Court decree dated<\/p>\n
13.9.1994, which is also illegal, null and void. Defendant No.7, Pritam Pal<\/p>\n
Singh had transferred the land measuring 29 kanal 5 marlas out of the<\/p>\n
disputed land in favour of defendant No.18 Tarlochan Singh vide sale deed<\/p>\n
dated 6.5.1997, which is also null and void. Defendant No.8- Paramjit<\/p>\n
Singh, defendant No.9- Harjit Singh and defendant No.10- Gurmeet Singh
\n R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008                                           -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
sons of Satnam Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant<\/p>\n
No.19- Nirmal Singh qua the land measuring 29 kanal 6 marlas out of the<\/p>\n
disputed land vide sale deed dated 13.5.1997 with malafide intention to<\/p>\n
defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. All the revenue entries based on these sale<\/p>\n
deeds are null and void. Defendants No.11, 13 to 17 have sold the land<\/p>\n
measuring 30 kanal 6 marlas out of the disputed land in favour of defendant<\/p>\n
No.20- Balkar Singh vide registered sale deed for a fictitious consideration<\/p>\n
of Rs.3,03,000\/- during the pendency of the present suit. Thus, this sale<\/p>\n
deed is hit by the principle of lis pendens and is null and void. On these<\/p>\n
allegations, this suit has been filed by Surat Singh and others against<\/p>\n
Bharawan Bai and others for declaration with consequential relief of<\/p>\n
possession. In the joint written statements, defendants No.2 to 17 and<\/p>\n
defendants No.16 and 19 have come up with the plea that Sadha Singh had<\/p>\n
transferred the suit land along with possession vide registered sale deed<\/p>\n
dated 1.7.1972 in favour of Bharawan Bai and Tara Singh and since then<\/p>\n
Bharawan Bai and Tara Singh and their successors-in-interest are in<\/p>\n
continuous possession of the suit land without any interruption from any<\/p>\n
quarter as owners. The following issues were framed:-\n<\/p>\n
            1)     Whether sale deeds dated 1.7.72, 9.3.76, 13.5.97 and<\/p>\n
                   6.5.97 are illegal, null and void, nonest, inoperative and<\/p>\n
                   not binding upon the legal rights of the plaintiff?OPP<\/p>\n
            1-A) Whether the registered sale deed dated 5.9.1997 executed<\/p>\n
                   by defendants No.11, 13 to 17 in favour of defendant<\/p>\n
                   No.20, is null and void and is hit by principle of lis-<\/p>\n
                   pends?OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2)     Whether the decrees dated 18.10.88, 1.12.90 and 13.9.94
\n R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008                                               -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
                    passed in civil suit Nos.937\/88, 1371\/90 and 379\/94<\/p>\n
                    respectively are illegal, null and void and not binding on<\/p>\n
                    the rights of plaintiffs?OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             3)     If issues No.1 and 2 are proved, whether plaintiffs are<\/p>\n
                    entitled to declaration and possession as prayed for?OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             4)     Whether plaintiffs are entitled to claim any compensation<\/p>\n
                    by way of damages from defendants, if so to what<\/p>\n
                    amount?OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             5)     Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file and<\/p>\n
                    maintain the present suit?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             6)     Whether the suit is time barred?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             7)     Whether defendants are bonafide purchasers for value<\/p>\n
                    and consideration, if so its effect?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             8)     Whether plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and<\/p>\n
                    conduct from filing the present suit?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             9)     Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining<\/p>\n
the evidence on record, the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior<\/p>\n
Division), Kurukshetra dismissed the suit vide her judgment and decree<\/p>\n
dated 22.12.2005.\n<\/p>\n
             Feeling aggrieved therewith, the plaintiffs went up in appeal,<\/p>\n
which has also been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District<\/p>\n
Judge, Kurukshetra vide her judgment and decree dated 26.4.2007. Being<\/p>\n
dissatisfied therewith, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.<\/p>\n
             I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, besides<\/p>\n
perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and
\n R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008                                         -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
circumspection.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
appellants strenuously urged that the appellants\/ plaintiffs have amply<\/p>\n
proved that the impugned sale deed dated 1.7.1972 is a false and fabricated<\/p>\n
document as according to Ex.PW4\/A report of Mr. N.K. Jain, Handwriting<\/p>\n
Expert, it does not bear the thumb impressions of Sadha Singh. He further<\/p>\n
puts that the report of Handwriting Expert, Mr. Ram Dhan Babber examined<\/p>\n
by the respondents\/ defendants has been illegally accepted by both the<\/p>\n
Courts below.\n<\/p>\n
            I have well considered these submissions. As a matter of fact,<\/p>\n
sale deed Ex.P.1 has been challenged on the ground of fraud and<\/p>\n
impersonation. In view of the provisions as enshrined in Order 6 Rule 4 of<\/p>\n
the Code of Civil Procedure, it is obligatory upon the party putting forth the<\/p>\n
plea of fraud to disclose the particulars thereof. Here in this case, the<\/p>\n
particulars of alleged fraud appear to have not been disclosed. Furthermore,<\/p>\n
the science of finger prints is complete and perfect in itself. Mr. N.K.Jain,<\/p>\n
examined by the plaintiffs has proved his report Ex.PW4\/A. As per the<\/p>\n
same, the thumb impressions marked Q.3 and Q.4 on the back of first page<\/p>\n
of the sale deed Ex.P.1 belong to some different persons and do not match<\/p>\n
with thumb impressions Q.1 and Q.2 which have been taken from first page<\/p>\n
of the sale deed Ex.P.1 and Q.5 taken from the second page of Ex.P.1. On<\/p>\n
the other hand, Ram Dhan Babber, Handwriting Expert examined by the<\/p>\n
defendants has proved his report Ex.DW3\/A. In his opinion, the signatures\/<\/p>\n
thumb impressions marked S-1 to S-8 on first page, back of first page, face<\/p>\n
of second page and on the sale deed dated 15.7.1964 are of the same person.<\/p>\n
Mr. N.K. Jain (sic.) has pointed out 5 dis-similarities in the thumb
\n R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008                                        -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
impressions marked Q.3 and Q.4 as compared to Q.1, Q.2, Q.5, S-3 to S-8<\/p>\n
whereas Ram Dhan Babber Handwriting Expert has given 10 similarities in<\/p>\n
the thumb impressions marked S-2, S-3, S-5, S-7 and S-8. He could not be<\/p>\n
shattered or shaken qua these similarities during his cross-examination. A<\/p>\n
combined reading of both these reports would show that the reasons<\/p>\n
assigned by Mr. Ram Dhan Babber are more plausible than the ones<\/p>\n
assigned by Mr. N.K. Jain. For a little while, if it is assumed that the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs- appellants were sure that the disputed sale deed executed the<\/p>\n
thumb impressions of Sadha Singh, they would have got referred the same<\/p>\n
to the Director, Finger Print Bureau or the Forensic Science Laboratory. As<\/p>\n
is borne out from the record, they did not have the courage to have such<\/p>\n
opinion. A careful delving into the findings returned by both the Courts<\/p>\n
below would reveal that no interference is warranted therein. In view of the<\/p>\n
provisions as enshrined in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the<\/p>\n
regular second appeal is to be entertained only when substantial question of<\/p>\n
law is involved therein. Here in this case, no such question of law is<\/p>\n
involved. That being so, this appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 26, 2008                                     ( HARBANS LAL )\nrenu                                                        JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Surat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2008 R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008 Date of Decision:26.09.2008 Surat Singh and others …..Appellants Vs. Satnam Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS […]<\/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-46944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSurat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 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\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-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=\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-25T08:27:11+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-25T08:27:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1535,\"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\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Surat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-25T08:27:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Surat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 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\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-25T08:27:11+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-25T08:27:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008"},"wordCount":1535,"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\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008","name":"Surat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-25T08:27:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surat-singh-and-others-vs-satnam-singh-and-others-on-26-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surat Singh And Others vs Satnam Singh And Others on 26 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46944","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=46944"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46944\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}