{"id":52982,"date":"2009-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009"},"modified":"2019-02-11T01:42:07","modified_gmt":"2019-02-10T20:12:07","slug":"tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Tarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Tarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007                        -1-\n\n                                   ****\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                      CHANDIGARH\n\n                       Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007\n                       Date of decision: 29.04.2009.\n\n\nTarsem Lal Chadha and others\n                                                       Petitioners\n\n                                Versus\n\nChanchal Rani and others\n                                                       ...Respondents\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.\n\nPresent:   Mr. Naresh K. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners.\n\n           Mr. Salil Sagar, Senior Advocate with\n           Ms. Lovejinder Kaur, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2\n\n                                          *****\nS.D.ANAND, J.\n<\/pre>\n
           The facts, having relevant bearing on the disposal of the<\/p>\n
controversy may be indicated in the first instance.<\/p>\n
           Janak Raj Chadha married twice.               The petitioners-<\/p>\n
defendants are children of Janak Raj Chadha from one wife; while<\/p>\n
respondent no.1 Chanchal Rani is the second wife of Janak Raj<\/p>\n
Chadha and respondents no.2 and 3 are the children born to her<\/p>\n
from the loins of    Janak Raj Chadha.            It was respondent no.1<\/p>\n
Chanchal Rani who filed a suit “for permanent injunction restraining<\/p>\n
the defendants from alienating and transferring in any manner the<\/p>\n
property and making construction, additions and alterations in the<\/p>\n
property No.411, Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar measuring 2K-3Marlas<\/p>\n
and also from interfering in the ownership rights of plaintiff” on the
\n Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007                        -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    ****<\/p>\n
averments which may be indicated as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            The property in suit was owned by Janak Raj Chadha<\/p>\n
who died on 17.1.1998. He executed a registered will on 14.7.1995,<\/p>\n
bequeathing the property aforementioned in favour of respondent<\/p>\n
no.1. On the basis of that will, it is the respondent-plaintiff No.1 who<\/p>\n
is exclusive owner of that property.         Inspite of the fact that the<\/p>\n
defendants-petitioners    have nothing to do with the title of that<\/p>\n
property, they started negotiating for the sale of that property after<\/p>\n
converting it into separate units and making construction\/alterations<\/p>\n
therein. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 had to file a suit for relief<\/p>\n
aforementioned when her entreaties to the defendants to desist from<\/p>\n
doing so fell on latter’s deaf-ears.       Respondents No.2 and 3 (who<\/p>\n
were children of    Chanchal Rani from the loins of her deceased<\/p>\n
husband) were impleaded as proforma defendants at the trial.<\/p>\n
            The suit was contested by the defendants-petitioners<\/p>\n
resisted the suit and also who denied the factum of the validity of the<\/p>\n
alleged will.\n<\/p>\n
            Along with the suit, a plea under Order 39 Rule l and 2 for<\/p>\n
the grant of interim restraint on alienation of the property in suit was<\/p>\n
filed. The learned Trial Court granted exparte stay order.<\/p>\n
            On entering appearance before the learned Trial Court,<\/p>\n
the defendants-petitioners conceded the confirmation of interim stay<\/p>\n
order till the disposal of the suit and it was so ordered accordingly.<\/p>\n
            Thereafter,   the   defendants-petitioners       Tarsem      Lal<\/p>\n
Chadha and Shiv Kumar Chadha made the following statement
\n Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007                     -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  ****<\/p>\n
before the learned Trial Court on 24.5.2005.\n<\/p>\n
           “The property in question has not been transferred even<\/p>\n
           in the name of Sh. Janak Raj. So, none of the parties to<\/p>\n
           the present suit, can alienate the same. We undertake<\/p>\n
           that we will not alienate the said property nor make any<\/p>\n
           construction, addition or alteration in the property in<\/p>\n
           dispute. The suit may be decided accordingly.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           In the context of that statement, Viney Kumar and<\/p>\n
Ashwani Kumar respondents also made a statement to the following<\/p>\n
effect:-\n<\/p>\n
           “We have heard the statement of defendant Nos.1 & 2<\/p>\n
           and we own the same.          The suit may be decided<\/p>\n
           accordingly.   At this stage we do not wish to cross<\/p>\n
           examine the plaintiff’s witnesses as not required at this<\/p>\n
           stage.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Apart therefrom, the learned counsel appearing on behalf<\/p>\n
of the defendants No. 1 and 2 therein made the following statement:-<\/p>\n
           “In view of the statements made by the defendants above,<\/p>\n
           at this stage, cross examination of PW Swaran Singh &<\/p>\n
           Prithvi Pal Singh present in the Court is not required to be<\/p>\n
           conducted.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The learned Trial Court noticed the above averments and<\/p>\n
passed the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
           “PWs are present for cross examination namely Swaran<\/p>\n
           Singh & Prithvi Pal Singh but the counsel for the
\n Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007                     -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                  ****<\/p>\n
           defendants have made a request that the defendants<\/p>\n
           undertake not to raise construction, addition or alteration<\/p>\n
           in the property in dispute as the property in question has<\/p>\n
           not been transferred even in the name of Sh. Janak Raj,<\/p>\n
           so, none of the parties to the present suit can alienate the<\/p>\n
           same. Thus, the suit may be decided accordingly and at<\/p>\n
           this stage, the cross examination of the present PWs is<\/p>\n
           not required to be conducted.       The statement of the<\/p>\n
           defendants Tarsem Lal Chadha, Shiv Kumar Chadha,<\/p>\n
           Vinay Kumar & Ashwani Kumar have also been recorded<\/p>\n
           separately, alongwith the statement of Sh. H.L.Sharma,<\/p>\n
           Adv. for the defendant Nos.1 & 2. Now to come up on<\/p>\n
           29.05.2006 for consideration upon the statements made<\/p>\n
           by the defendants.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Thus, the matter was adjourned to 29.5.2006 ” for<\/p>\n
consideration upon the statements made by the defendants”.<\/p>\n
           On 29.5.2006, the following order was recorded by the<\/p>\n
learned Trial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
           “Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, filed the P.O.A. on behalf<\/p>\n
           of the defendant Nos.4 & 6.      Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
           plaintiff closed the evidence.   Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
           defendant Nos.1 & 2 had made a request that in case, the<\/p>\n
           case is not to be decided on the basis of the statements<\/p>\n
           given by the defendants on the previous date of hearing,<\/p>\n
           he wants to file the application for giving permission to
\n Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007                        -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                      ****<\/p>\n
            cross examine the PWs. Now to come up on 27.07.2006<\/p>\n
            for filing the same if any and for DWs.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            The interim order dated 27.7.2006 does not notice the<\/p>\n
disposal of the controversy aforementioned. It only noticed that no<\/p>\n
DW was present and the matter was adjourned to 8.9.2006. On that<\/p>\n
date, exparte orders were passed against two defendants as none<\/p>\n
appeared on their behalf. The evidence of the defendants\/petitioners<\/p>\n
was ordered to be closed under the orders of the Court by recording<\/p>\n
the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
            “Inspite of calling the present case time & again, none<\/p>\n
            has put in appearance on behalf of the defendant Nos.4 &<\/p>\n
            6 nor their counsel has put in appearance. In the given<\/p>\n
            circumstances, the defendant Nos.4 & 6 are proceeded<\/p>\n
            against exparte. No evidence is present on behalf of the<\/p>\n
            remaining defendants. It was the last opportunity. Inspite<\/p>\n
            of giving several opportunities, the defendants failed to<\/p>\n
            adduce the evidence.             Thus, the evidence of the<\/p>\n
            remaining defendants is closed by the order of the Court.<\/p>\n
            Arguments have also been heard upon the application for<\/p>\n
            producing the original will dated 23.10.1997 moved on<\/p>\n
            behalf of the plaintiff. In the present case, the defendants<\/p>\n
            have not led any evidence qua the will or otherwise.<\/p>\n
            Thus,       the   application    has   become    infructuous.<\/p>\n
            Accordingly, the application stands disposed off. Now to<\/p>\n
            come up on 21.09.2006 for arguments.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007                      -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                   ****<\/p>\n
           The defendants-petitioners (Tarsem Lal Chandha and<\/p>\n
Shiv Kumar Chadha) had filed an application (Annexure P-6) dated<\/p>\n
5.6.2006 “for disposal of the suit on merits after cross examination of<\/p>\n
Swaran Singh and Prithvi Pal Singh PWs”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The application was resisted on behalf of the plaintiffs-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
respondents which was rejected by the learned Trial Court, vide<\/p>\n
impugned order dated 12.5.2007.\n<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
defendants-petitioners, argued that the entire approach of the<\/p>\n
learned Trial Court was legally inappropriate inasmuch as it ought to<\/p>\n
have either proceeded to dispose of the suit in the light of the<\/p>\n
statements made by them on 24.5.2006 or allowed the recall of PWs<\/p>\n
Swaran Singh and Prithvi Pal Singh for cross-examination.<\/p>\n
           The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs-respondents, argued that the plea for additional evidence<\/p>\n
having been filed after the closure of defendants-petitioners evidence<\/p>\n
under the orders of the Court on 8.9.2006, the defendants-petitioners<\/p>\n
cannot be heard to argue in favour of the allowance of the additional<\/p>\n
evidence plea. It was also argued that it was for the defendants-<\/p>\n
petitioners to insist upon the Trial Court to grant an order in the light<\/p>\n
of the statement made by them on 24.5.2006 and if no order in the<\/p>\n
light of their aforementioned statement came to be granted by the<\/p>\n
learned   Trial   court   and   defendants-petitioners     continued   to<\/p>\n
participate in the proceedings till their evidence was closed under<\/p>\n
the orders of the Court and that order attained finality for want of a
\n Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007                     -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    ****<\/p>\n
challenge, they would be deemed to have waived their right for the<\/p>\n
recall of PWs Swaran Singh and Prithvi Pal Singh.<\/p>\n
            In an act of resistance, the learned counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
behalf of the defendants-petitioners argued that the raising of an<\/p>\n
inference on the point of waiver would be inappropriate in view of the<\/p>\n
fact that the defendants-petitioners reiterated the relevant request<\/p>\n
before the learned Trial Court on 29.5.2006 as well and they had to<\/p>\n
compulsively file a plea for additional evidence when no heed was<\/p>\n
paid to their request by the learned Trial Court. In that very context,<\/p>\n
it was argued that the statements of PWs Swaran Singh and Prithvi<\/p>\n
Pal Singh may have a very relevant bearing on the point in<\/p>\n
controversy (i.e. the validity of the impugned will) because they are<\/p>\n
scribe and attesting witness of the will.\n<\/p>\n
            Insofar as the relevancy of the statements of         PWs<\/p>\n
Swaran Singh and Prithvi Pal Singh is concerned, there can be no<\/p>\n
escape from the conclusion that their testimony is bound to impact<\/p>\n
the ultimate adjudication of the controversy. One of them is a scribe<\/p>\n
of the impugned will; while the other is attesting witness thereof.   If<\/p>\n
they are not allowed to be recalled for cross-examination, it is<\/p>\n
obvious that their unchallenged examination-in-chief would favour the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs-respondents wholehog.\n<\/p>\n
            Insofar as the waiver plea raised by the learned Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents is<\/p>\n
concerned, the plea raised is not on a firmer footing. The essential<\/p>\n
purpose of procedural law is to do substantial justice between the
\n Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007                        -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   ****<\/p>\n
parties. It is not the purpose of law to punish a negligent party. It<\/p>\n
would be apparent from a perusal of the statement dated 24.5.2006<\/p>\n
that defendants-petitioners had made an absolutely precise averment<\/p>\n
that since the property had not been transferred in the name of the<\/p>\n
predecessor-in-interest of the parties, neither party could alienate it.<\/p>\n
While undertaking that they would not, on their part, alienate that<\/p>\n
property and also not make any construction\/additional alteration,<\/p>\n
they requested for the disposal of the suit ‘accordingly’.     It is the<\/p>\n
learned Trial Court only which refrained from passing any orders,<\/p>\n
either way, upon that statement and adjourned the matter to<\/p>\n
29.5.2006 ‘for consideration upon the statements made by the<\/p>\n
defdts’.   On the adjourned date, the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
behalf of the defendants-petitioners reiterated that request.         It<\/p>\n
appears that the learned Trial Court was not inclined to pay any heed<\/p>\n
to that part of the request which was otherwise noticed in that order<\/p>\n
and it was in the light of the attitude of the learned Trial Court only<\/p>\n
that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants-<\/p>\n
petitioners applied for the leave of the Court to file a formal<\/p>\n
application for permission to cross examine the PWs.               That<\/p>\n
application is not noticed to have been filed on the adjourned date<\/p>\n
i.e. 8.9.2006. it came to be ultimately filed later on. It cannot, thus,<\/p>\n
be said    with any justification that any waiver on the part of the<\/p>\n
defendants-petitioners in the context is inferrable.<\/p>\n
            It is apparent from the record that the learned Trial Court<\/p>\n
was in the know of the fact that the defendants-petitioners had
\n Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007                    -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    ****<\/p>\n
volunteered to get the suit disposed of in the light of the statement<\/p>\n
made by them.      It was for the learned Trial Court to obtain the<\/p>\n
reaction of the plaintiffs therein and to pass whatever orders it<\/p>\n
deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. It could dispose of the<\/p>\n
suit in terms of the statement made by the defendants-petitioners or<\/p>\n
it could refuse to dispose of the suit on the basis thereof, either on<\/p>\n
account of resistance offered on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents<\/p>\n
or for any other reason. The record indicates that the learned Trial<\/p>\n
Court did not adopt any precise response of that category.        The<\/p>\n
refrain in the context, on the part of the learned Trial Court cannot,<\/p>\n
work to the detriment of the defendants-petitioners for drawing an<\/p>\n
inference on point of a waiver.\n<\/p>\n
           Insofar as the attaining of finality of the order dated<\/p>\n
8.9.2006 is concerned, it also cannot eclipse the invalidity of the<\/p>\n
impugned order. There can be no estoppel against the law. In this<\/p>\n
case, the procedural law ordained the learned Trial Court to order<\/p>\n
the recall of PWs Swaran Singh & Prithvi Pal Singh, if it was not<\/p>\n
inclined to dispose of the suit on the basis of the statement made by<\/p>\n
the petitioners before that court on 24.5.2006.<\/p>\n
           The point advocated on behalf of the respondents-<\/p>\n
plaintiffs would have been valid, if it was a pure and simple case of<\/p>\n
closure of evidence under the orders of the Court and if the affected<\/p>\n
party were to apply for the leave of the Court to adduce additional<\/p>\n
evidence. In that case, ofcourse, the plea of attaining of finality of<\/p>\n
the     former      order         would    have     hindered      the
\n Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007                       -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    ****<\/p>\n
consideration\/maintainability of the latter plea.            The present<\/p>\n
controversy is based upon entirely different facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
of the case.\n<\/p>\n
            It is    otherwise apparent from the record that the<\/p>\n
defendants-petitioners had raised an incorrect plea that they had<\/p>\n
made that statement dated 24.5.2006 on a verbal promise by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff-respondent that she would withdraw the suit.       For want of<\/p>\n
evidence, to buttress it the learned Trial Court appropriately declined<\/p>\n
it. At the same time, that too does not affect the validity of the finding<\/p>\n
by this court that the recall of Swaran Singh & Prithvi Pal Singh PWs<\/p>\n
had to be, in any case, ordered by the learned Trial Court if it was not<\/p>\n
inclined to dispose of the suit in the light of the statement made by<\/p>\n
defendants-petitioners on 24.5.2006.\n<\/p>\n
            In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition shall<\/p>\n
stand allowed.      The impugned order shall stand set aside.        The<\/p>\n
learned Trial Court shall proceed to recall PWs        Swaran Singh &<\/p>\n
Prithvi Pal Singh for the purpose of cross-examination. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the learned Trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
April 29, 2009                                  (S.D.Anand)\nPka                                                Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Tarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 2009 Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3161 of 2007 Date of decision: 29.04.2009. Tarsem Lal Chadha and others Petitioners Versus Chanchal Rani and […]<\/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-52982","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 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\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-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=\"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-10T20:12:07+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-10T20:12:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2324,\"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\\\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Tarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-10T20:12:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 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":"Tarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 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\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-10T20:12:07+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-10T20:12:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009"},"wordCount":2324,"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\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009","name":"Tarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-10T20:12:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tarsem-lal-chadha-and-others-vs-chanchal-rani-and-others-on-29-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tarsem Lal Chadha And Others vs Chanchal Rani And Others on 29 April, 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\/52982","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=52982"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52982\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52982"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52982"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52982"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}