{"id":502,"date":"2009-12-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2"},"modified":"2015-12-31T15:14:59","modified_gmt":"2015-12-31T09:44:59","slug":"parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Parveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Parveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No. 1224 of 2005 (O&M)                                    1\n\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n                       R.S.A.No. 1224 of 2005 (O&M)\n                       Date of decision: 2.12.2009\n\n\nParveen Kumar and others\n                                                      ......Appellants\n\n                       Versus\n\n\nSmt.Baljinder Kaur and others\n                                                   .......Respondents\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:   Mr. Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate with\n           Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate,\n           Mr.Vishal Goel, Advocate,\n           for the appellants.\n\n           Mr.R.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate,\n           for respondents No.1 and 2.\n\n           Mr.Roopak Bansal, Advocate,\n           for respondents No.5 to 8.\n\n                ****\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
           Plaintiffs- Baljinder Kaur and Balraj Singh had filed a suit<\/p>\n
for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell<\/p>\n
dated 12.10.1990, which was       dismissed by the Additional Civil<\/p>\n
Judge (Sr.Divn.), Jagadhari      vide judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
28.1.2002. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were set aside<\/p>\n
by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhari       vide judgment and<\/p>\n
decree dated 17.1.2005 and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed
\n R.S.A.No. 1224 of 2005 (O&M)                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
with costs. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants.<\/p>\n
           Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate<\/p>\n
Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:-<\/p>\n
                 “2.   Defendant No.1 was owner of the suit land<\/p>\n
                 measuring 130K-5M situated within the revenue<\/p>\n
                 estate   of   village   Safeelpur   as   detailed   and<\/p>\n
                 described in the head note of the plaint.       As per<\/p>\n
                 case of the plaintiffs, he(defendant No.1) agreed to<\/p>\n
                 sell the same to Baljinder Kaur plaintiff no.1 through<\/p>\n
                 her brother Balraj Singh, plaintiff no.2, at the rate of<\/p>\n
                 Rs.17,500\/- per acre vide agreement to sell dated<\/p>\n
                 12.1.90 Ex.P1. Further case of the plaintiffs is that<\/p>\n
                 Rs.50,000\/- were paid as earnest money and<\/p>\n
                 remaining amount was to be paid at the time of<\/p>\n
                 execution and registration of the sale deed which<\/p>\n
                 was to take place on or before 28.2.91.          It was<\/p>\n
                 stipulated in the agreement that in the event of<\/p>\n
                 failure of the defendant no.1 to execute and to get<\/p>\n
                 the sale deed registered within the sitpulated period,<\/p>\n
                 plaintiff no.1 will have the option to get the same<\/p>\n
                 executed and registered through the process of the<\/p>\n
                 court.   The agreement was signed by defendant<\/p>\n
                 no.1 and by plaintiff no.2 on behalf of plaintiff no.1<\/p>\n
                 and was attested by two attesting witnesses. The
\n R.S.A.No. 1224 of 2005 (O&M)                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
               earnest money was given to the defendant no.1<\/p>\n
               against receipt Ex.P2.    On 28.2.91 plaintiff No.1<\/p>\n
               went to the office of Sub Registrar, Bilaspur to get<\/p>\n
               the sale deed executed and registered with money<\/p>\n
               to pay the balance sale price and to meet the<\/p>\n
               expenses of execution and registration of the sale<\/p>\n
               deed. She remained present in the premises of the<\/p>\n
               office of Sub Registrar from 9.00 A.M. To 3.00 P.M<\/p>\n
               but defendant no.1 did not turn up to get the sale<\/p>\n
               deed executed.     Plaintiff No.1 got her presence<\/p>\n
               recorded before the Sub Registrar by executing an<\/p>\n
               affidavit. She has always been ready and willing to<\/p>\n
               perform her part of the agreement and is still ready<\/p>\n
               and willing to get the sale deed executed and<\/p>\n
               registered   on     payment     of    balance       sale<\/p>\n
               consideration.    With these averments plaintiffs<\/p>\n
               brought the present suit for possession of the suit<\/p>\n
               land by way of specific performance of the<\/p>\n
               agreement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               3.   Defendant No.1 appeared and denied the<\/p>\n
               claim of the plaintiffs in toto. He denied that he had<\/p>\n
               entered into an agreement with plaintiff no.1 through<\/p>\n
               her brother to sell the suit land. He even denied the<\/p>\n
               receipt of Rs.50,000\/- as earnest money.             He
\n R.S.A.No. 1224 of 2005 (O&M)                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
                  pleaded that on 12.10.90 he had visited Jagadhri to<\/p>\n
                  execute a general power of attorney in favour of one<\/p>\n
                  Suresh Kumar regarding suit property. Said power<\/p>\n
                  of attorney was got scribed from a deed writer.<\/p>\n
                  When his signatures were obtained by the deed<\/p>\n
                  writer on said power of attorney, his signatures were<\/p>\n
                  obtained by the deed writer on some other papers<\/p>\n
                  also. He later came to known that the deed writer<\/p>\n
                  had also obtained his signatures on the agreement<\/p>\n
                  to sell Ex.P1 by playing fraud in collusion with the<\/p>\n
                  plaintiffs.   Whereas no such agreement was<\/p>\n
                  executed byhim nor he had received any amount as<\/p>\n
                  earnest money.     He further pleaded that several<\/p>\n
                  trees of the value of more than Rs.2 lacs were<\/p>\n
                  standing on the suit land and therefore, there was<\/p>\n
                  no question of selling the land at the meagre price<\/p>\n
                  of Rs.17,500\/- per acre. With these averments he<\/p>\n
                  sought dismissal of the suit.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were<\/p>\n
framed by the trial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
                   1. Whether the defendant is the owner in<\/p>\n
                   possession of the land in dispute?OPP.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   2. Whether the defendant had contracted to sell<\/p>\n
                   the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff No.1
\n R.S.A.No. 1224 of 2005 (O&M)                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
                  vide agreement dated 12.10.1990?OPP.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  3. Whether the defendant received from plaintiff No.1 a<\/p>\n
                  sum of Rs.50,000\/- as earnest money in pursuance of<\/p>\n
                  the agreement to sell dated 12.10.1990?OPP.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  4. If issues no.1 and 2 are proved in affirmative,<\/p>\n
                  whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the<\/p>\n
                  suit land by way of specific performance of the<\/p>\n
                  contractor of sale dated 12.10.1990? OPP.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  5. Whether the agreement dated 12.10.1990 is a<\/p>\n
                  result of fraud and misrepresentation as alleged by<\/p>\n
                  defendant in para no.2 of written statement?OPD.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file<\/p>\n
                  the present suit?OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  7. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not<\/p>\n
                  maintainable in the present form?OPD.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  8. Whether the agreement dated 12.10.1990 is not<\/p>\n
                  legally enforceable in the eyes of law?OPD.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  9. Whether the defendant is entitled to special<\/p>\n
                     costs under Section 35-A CPC?OPD.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Vide   orders   dated    7.10.1986    and    19.7.2000,    following<\/p>\n
additional issues were framed:-\n<\/p>\n
                  9-A. Whether defendants no.2 and 3 are bonafide<\/p>\n
                  purchasers and if so, its effect?OPD-2 & 3.<\/p>\n
                  9-B.   Whether     the   defendants     are   bonafide<\/p>\n
                  purchasers with consideration in respect of suit
\n R.S.A.No. 1224 of 2005 (O&M)                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
                  land?OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  9-C. Whether the possession of the defendants is<\/p>\n
                  protected under Section 53(A) of Transfer of<\/p>\n
                  Property Act, as alleged?OPD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  10.Relief.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
           Baljinder Kaur and Balraj Singh had filed a suit for<\/p>\n
possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell<\/p>\n
dated 12.10.1990.     Learned trial Court decreed the suit of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs for recovery of the earnest money. In appeal filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs, their suit was decreed for specific performance of the<\/p>\n
agreement to sell. The appellants were not party before the Courts<\/p>\n
below. Defendants No.4 to 8 had purchased the property in dispute<\/p>\n
from defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who had in turn purchased the same<\/p>\n
from defendant No.1.    The appellants have further purchased the<\/p>\n
property in dispute from defendants No. 4 to 8.\n<\/p>\n
           As per High Courts Rules and Orders Volume 5 Chapter<\/p>\n
I, Part C Rule 2, an aggrieved party, though not party before the<\/p>\n
Courts below, can file an appeal by seeking permission of this Court.<\/p>\n
In the present case, the application for leave to appeal has not been<\/p>\n
filed by the appellants. It is a procedural defect and the appeal is<\/p>\n
pending in this Court since the year 2005. In these circumstances, it<\/p>\n
would be in the interest of justice to dispose of the appeal on merits
\n R.S.A.No. 1224 of 2005 (O&M)                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
rather than dismissed the same on technical grounds.<\/p>\n
            So far as the execution of the agreement to sell in<\/p>\n
question is concerned, the same cannot be agitated by the<\/p>\n
appellants in this appeal as the defendants had not filed any appeal<\/p>\n
against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is only the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs, who had filed an appeal against judgment and decree of<\/p>\n
the trial Court seeking relief of specific performance of agreement to<\/p>\n
sell instead of recovery of the earnest money.\n<\/p>\n
            It has been held by the Apex Court in Usha Sinha vs. Dina<\/p>\n
Ram<\/a> (2007) 7 Supreme Court cases 144 that the doctrine of lis pendens<\/p>\n
is based on the principle that the person purchasing property from the<\/p>\n
judgment-debtor during the pendency of the suit has no independent right<\/p>\n
to property to resist, obstruct or object execution of a decree. Resistance<\/p>\n
at the instance of transferee of a judgment-debtor during the pendency of<\/p>\n
the proceedings cannot be said to be resistance or obstruction by a person<\/p>\n
in his own right and, therefore, is not entitled to get his claim adjudicated.<\/p>\n
The doctrine of list pendens would apply to the transaction in question and<\/p>\n
the High Court was wholly right in holding that the case was covered by<\/p>\n
Rule 102 of Order 21 CPC. The appellant could not seek protection of<\/p>\n
pendency of suit instituted by her. The executing Court was not justified in<\/p>\n
granting stay of execution proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
            It has been held by the Apex Court in Amit Kumar Shaw and<\/p>\n
another vs. Farida Khatoon and another (2005) 11 Supreme Court<\/p>\n
cases 403 that “Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is an<\/p>\n
expression of the principle “pending a litigation nothing new should
\n R.S.A.No. 1224 of 2005 (O&M)                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
be introduced”. It provides that pendente lite, neither party to the<\/p>\n
litigation, in which any right to immovable property is in question, can<\/p>\n
alienate or otherwise deal with such property so as to affect his<\/p>\n
appointment. This section is based on equity and good conscience<\/p>\n
and is intended to protect the parties to litigation against alienations<\/p>\n
by their opponent during the pendency of the suit.               In order to<\/p>\n
constitute a lis pendens, the following elements must be present:<\/p>\n
           1.                 There must be a suit or proceeding pending in<\/p>\n
                a court of competent jurisdiction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2.                 The suit or proceeding must not be collusive.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           3.                 The litigation must be one in which right to<\/p>\n
                immovable property is directly and specifically in<\/p>\n
                question.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           4.                 There must be a transfer of or otherwise<\/p>\n
                dealing with the property in dispute by any party to the<\/p>\n
                litigation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           5.                 Such transfer must affect the rights of the<\/p>\n
                other party that may ultimately accrue under the terms<\/p>\n
                of the decree or order.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Admittedly, the appellants had purchased the suit<\/p>\n
property during the pendency of this litigation. Hence, the transfer of<\/p>\n
the suit land in favour of the appellants is hit by the doctrine of lis<\/p>\n
pendens.    The question of good faith which is essential to be<\/p>\n
established before an equitable relief can be granted in favour of
\n R.S.A.No. 1224 of 2005 (O&M)                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
subsequent vendee is totally irrelevant so far as the transfer which is<\/p>\n
hit by the doctrine of lis pendens is concerned. In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, learned Additional District Judge had rightly decreed<\/p>\n
the suit of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
             No substantial question of law arises in this regular<\/p>\n
second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                               (SABINA)\n                                                JUDGE\nDecember       02 , 2009\nanita\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Parveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 2009 R.S.A.No. 1224 of 2005 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1224 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.12.2009 Parveen Kumar and others ……Appellants Versus Smt.Baljinder Kaur and others …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. […]<\/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-502","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nParveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 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\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-31T09:44:59+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-31T09:44:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":1714,\"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\\\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Parveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-31T09:44:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 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":"Parveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 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\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-31T09:44:59+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-31T09:44:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2"},"wordCount":1714,"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\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2","name":"Parveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-31T09:44:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parveen-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-baljinder-kaur-and-others-on-2-december-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parveen Kumar And Others vs Smt.Baljinder Kaur And Others on 2 December, 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\/502","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=502"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/502\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=502"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=502"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=502"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}