{"id":49106,"date":"2009-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-10-08T21:02:45","modified_gmt":"2015-10-08T15:32:45","slug":"mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Mateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009<\/div>\n
RSA No.3375 of 2006                                                           1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH\n\n                               R.S.A. No. 3375 of 2006\n                               Date of Decision:November 10, 2009\n\n\n\nMateshwar Dayal                                     ...........Appellant\n\n\n\n                               Versus\n\n\n\n\nParkash Chand and others                            ..........Respondents\n\n\n\n\nCoram:       Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina\n\nPresent: Mr.Rakesh Nehra,Advocate for the Appellant.\n\n\n                               **\n\nSabina, J.\n<\/pre>\n
               Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession.       The<\/p>\n
suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior<\/p>\n
Division) Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.2002. Aggrieved by<\/p>\n
the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and vide judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
16.12.2005, learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar dismissed the same.<\/p>\n
Hence, the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
               The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned District<\/p>\n
Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:-<\/p>\n
          2.The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court, in brief, was that<\/p>\n
          he had filed a suit for declaration and possession alleging himself<\/p>\n
          to be owner of a Nauhra in dispute situate at Mohalla Tella,<\/p>\n
          Jhajjar, which was inherited by him from his grand father Pt.
\n RSA No.3375 of 2006                                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
          Devi Dayal, through a registered Will dated 9.2.1971. As per<\/p>\n
          plaintiff, he lost the original Will dated 9.2.1971 while going in a<\/p>\n
          bus and,therefore, he produced the certified copy thereof. It was<\/p>\n
          alleged that on 5.11.1995, when the plaintiff was away to<\/p>\n
          Goverdhan in U.P., the defendants had wrongfully and without his<\/p>\n
          consent dispossessed him and entered into the possession of the<\/p>\n
          Nauhra in dispute by dreaking open the lock thereof. He asked<\/p>\n
          the defendants to handover the possession of the Nauhra in<\/p>\n
          dispute but to no avail. Hence, a civil suit No.671 of 1995 was<\/p>\n
          instituted against the defendants on 9.12.1995.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          3.On notice, defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
          alleging that plaintiff was not owner of the property in dispute. In<\/p>\n
          fact, it is defendants No.1 to 4 who became owner in possession<\/p>\n
          of the disputed property vide sale deed dated 23.1.1976. As per<\/p>\n
          them, in fact, one Braham Parkash son of Devi Dayal resident of<\/p>\n
          Jhajjar was owner in possession of the plot which he had received<\/p>\n
          through a registered Will dated 1.4.1971. Said Braham Parkash<\/p>\n
          sold the plot in dispute to defendants no.1 to 4.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          3. It was also averred that since the Will dated 9.1.1971 was<\/p>\n
          cancelled by Pt.Devi Dayal by making another Will dated<\/p>\n
          1.4.1971. So the former will is not effective and not binding upon<\/p>\n
          the parties.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were<\/p>\n
framed by the trial Court on 10.4.1996:-\n<\/p>\n
          “1. Whether the     plaintiff is owner of disputed plot as alleged?<\/p>\n
          OPP
\n RSA No.3375 of 2006                                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          2. Whether he Will dated 9.2.1971 is binding on the rights of the<\/p>\n
          defendants?OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          3. Relief.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Vide order dated 15.3.2002, the following additional issue was<\/p>\n
          framed:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          “Whether the Will dated 1.4.1971 was executed by Devi Dayal in<\/p>\n
          favour of defendants?OPD<\/p>\n
               After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of<\/p>\n
the opinion that this appeal is devoid of any merit.<\/p>\n
               A Will is a document that speaks of the mind of the deceased<\/p>\n
after his death.   The executant of the Will is though never available for<\/p>\n
deposing as to under what circumstances, he has executed the Will. This<\/p>\n
aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question<\/p>\n
whether the document propounded is proved to be the last Will of the<\/p>\n
testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to<\/p>\n
be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of<\/p>\n
the Will. A Will is required to be proved like any other document. Since<\/p>\n
the Will is required to be attested and as per Section 68 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Evidence Act, 1872, at least one attesting witness is required to be<\/p>\n
examined to prove due execution of the Will. The attesting witness is<\/p>\n
required to establish that the Will in question was executed by the testator<\/p>\n
in the presence of attesting witness and they had attested the same in the<\/p>\n
presence of the testator. In a case where the Will is a registered document<\/p>\n
then the endorsement made by the Sub Registrar that the Will had been<\/p>\n
thumb marked or signed by the executant in his presence after it was read<\/p>\n
over to the executant has a presumption of truth. It is also a settled
\n RSA No.3375 of 2006                                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
proposition of law that in connection with Wills execution of which is<\/p>\n
alleged to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the test of<\/p>\n
satisfaction of judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasis that<\/p>\n
in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the<\/p>\n
Court is the last Will of the testator, the Court is called upon to decide a<\/p>\n
solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances, the Court has to<\/p>\n
be fully satisfied that the Will has been validly executed by the testator.<\/p>\n
               Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession that he<\/p>\n
was owner of the suit land on the basis of Will executed in his favour by his<\/p>\n
grand father dated 9.2.1971. In order to prove the due execution of the<\/p>\n
Will, plaintiff examined Registration Clerk, PW1 Jai Parkash and himself<\/p>\n
appeared in the witness box as PW2. Plaintiff also examined PW3 Lachman<\/p>\n
Singh, Attesting Witness of the Will. Although the Will Exhibit P1 is a<\/p>\n
registered document but the propounder of the Will was also required to<\/p>\n
establish that it was a genuine document. While executing the Will Exhibit<\/p>\n
P1, the executant had not given any reason as to why he was depriving his<\/p>\n
son from his property. This is sufficient ground to render the Will a<\/p>\n
suspicious document. Hence, the Courts below rightly held that the Will<\/p>\n
Exhibit P1 was not a genuine document.         So far as Will Exhibit DW4\/A<\/p>\n
dated 1.4.1971 is concerned petitioner had failed to examine the attesting<\/p>\n
witness of the Will and hence, the learned trial Court had rightly held that<\/p>\n
the Will Exhibit DW4\/A was not proved in accordance with law to have<\/p>\n
been duly executed by the executant. Braham Parkash was the son of Devi<\/p>\n
Dayal and after his death Braham Parkash inherited the property of his<\/p>\n
father. Braham Parkash executed the sale deed dated 23.1.1976 in favour of<\/p>\n
the defendants. The defendants, in order to prove the due execution of the
\n RSA No.3375 of 2006                                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
sale deed examined     the Registration Clerk    Vinod Kumar DW1, who<\/p>\n
brought the original record and proved the due registration of the sale deed<\/p>\n
Exhibit D1. Defendant- Parkash Chand himself appeared in the witness box<\/p>\n
as DW2 and has deposed with regard to due execution of the sale deed. The<\/p>\n
sale deed was executed in the year 1976 ,whereas, the suit was filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in the year 1995. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
               No substantial question of law arises in this regular second<\/p>\n
appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this<\/p>\n
appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ( Sabina )
\n                                                    Judge
\nNovember 10, 2009
\narya\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Mateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009 RSA No.3375 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3375 of 2006 Date of Decision:November 10, 2009 Mateshwar Dayal ………..Appellant Versus Parkash Chand and others ……….Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra,Advocate […]<\/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-49106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-08T15:32:45+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T15:32:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1112,\"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\\\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Mateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-08T15:32:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-08T15:32:45+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T15:32:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009"},"wordCount":1112,"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\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009","name":"Mateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-08T15:32:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mateshwar-dayal-vs-parkash-chand-and-others-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mateshwar Dayal vs Parkash Chand And Others on 10 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49106","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=49106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}