{"id":54020,"date":"2008-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008"},"modified":"2015-04-29T06:36:22","modified_gmt":"2015-04-29T01:06:22","slug":"gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Gian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008                                       1\n\n\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.\n\n\n                     Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008\n\n                      Date of Decision: 10.11.2008\n\n\nGian Chand\n                                                            ... Petitioner\n                                  Versus\nParveen Kumar\n                                                           ...Respondent\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.\n\n\nPresent: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate\n         for the petitioner.\n\n\nKanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
             The petitioner is a landlord-Non Resident Indian who has<\/p>\n
failed before learned Rent Controller to evict the tenant. The findings of<\/p>\n
learned Rent Controller originated not only from the pleadings, and<\/p>\n
accompanying circumstances but from the appreciation of evidence<\/p>\n
also. Before the findings returned by learned Rent Controller are<\/p>\n
considered, it will be apposite here to reproduce para 5 of the eviction<\/p>\n
petition:-\n<\/p>\n
                     “5.      That the respondent is liable to ejectment<\/p>\n
                     as the petitioner who is owner landlord and is a non-<\/p>\n
                     resident Indian has since returned to India. The<\/p>\n
                     petitioner was earlier in Jury services at London and<\/p>\n
                     now since retired. The petitioner now wants to settle
\n Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
                    in India at Jalandhar alongwith his wife which is the<\/p>\n
                    birth place of the petitioner. Now in the old age the<\/p>\n
                    Petitioner wants to remain at Jalandhar, at his<\/p>\n
                    native place, close to his nears and dears and wants<\/p>\n
                    to permanently settle at Jalandhar. The Petitioner<\/p>\n
                    requires the demised premises alongwith other<\/p>\n
                    rented shops for his personal use and occupation for<\/p>\n
                    doing the business. The petitioner does not own or<\/p>\n
                    possess any other non-residential building in the<\/p>\n
                    urban area of Jalandhar. The shop in dispute<\/p>\n
                    alongwith other portion of the premises i.e. property<\/p>\n
                    no. 56-57 was rented out by the Petitioner as the<\/p>\n
                    petitioner was going abroad and to keep the<\/p>\n
                    property in good condition and now the petitioner<\/p>\n
                    after retirement the Petitioner decided to come back.<\/p>\n
                    The petitioner not only requires the premises in<\/p>\n
                    dispute but other residential as well as non-<\/p>\n
                    residential portions also which are with other<\/p>\n
                    tenants”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Mr. Jindal, during the course of arguments, has provided the<\/p>\n
eviction petition and laid much emphasis as to how this part of pleadings<\/p>\n
has been incorporated.\n<\/p>\n
          To controvert these averments made, a written statement was<\/p>\n
filed in which it was stated that shop in question along with other<\/p>\n
portions of property Nos. 56 and 57 have been rented out to many<\/p>\n
tenants. It was stated that the petitioner had earlier filed, in his capacity
\n Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
as landlord qua the land owned by his wife, ejectment petition against<\/p>\n
one tenant Jyoti Rana which consist of one shop at ground floor and<\/p>\n
three rooms, bathroom, latrine etc. The petitioner succeeded in that<\/p>\n
petition and the shop was vacated. Lateron, this shop was let out to<\/p>\n
another tenant Manoj Aggarwal. Furthermore, it was stated that the<\/p>\n
petitioner was in vacant possession of sufficient accommodation of<\/p>\n
building Nos. 56 and 57 and besides this he is in possession of property<\/p>\n
No. 58, Shiv Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar and the petitioner has<\/p>\n
concealed the fact regarding his possession and ownership of other<\/p>\n
premises in the eviction petition. It was also stated that petitioner had<\/p>\n
installed a board outside the building for the sale of it. It was stated that<\/p>\n
there are photographs available with the tenant regarding the board<\/p>\n
displayed for sale.\n<\/p>\n
          During the course of arguments, it was also submitted before<\/p>\n
the Court below that the landlord had also rented out a shop in the<\/p>\n
same building to Shakuntla Devi before filing of the eviction petition. It<\/p>\n
was also stated that many ejectment petitions have been filed.<\/p>\n
          Four of such petitions are listed today together.<\/p>\n
          Learned Rent Controller noticed the arguments advanced by<\/p>\n
the landlord that the premises are required for his personal use. He also<\/p>\n
noticed that copy of passport Ex.A5 has been proved. Sale deed Ex.A1<\/p>\n
and copy of the sale deed in favour of Swaran Kaur Ex.A2 along with<\/p>\n
site plan Ex.A3 were also noticed by learned Rent Controller. Relying<\/p>\n
upon the ratio of law that Non Resident Indian landlord has a bonafide<\/p>\n
requirement, the argument pressed before learned Rent Controller was<\/p>\n
that the petitioner after his retirement require the premises for his own
\n Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
use and occupation. Before learned Rent Controller, on behalf of the<\/p>\n
tenant, it was urged that there is a greed to get the property vacated.<\/p>\n
The conduct of the tenant and the averments made by him are such<\/p>\n
which disentitle him from getting the premises vacated. He has failed to<\/p>\n
prove his bonafide necessity. Learned Rent Controller observed as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “11.         I have gone through the file and have<\/p>\n
                   heard the learned counsel for the parties. I find that<\/p>\n
                   the need of the petitioner is not bonafide. The<\/p>\n
                   petitioner has filed three other petitions against<\/p>\n
                   different tenants. All these tenants are tenants in the<\/p>\n
                   same building. It is crystal clear from the previous<\/p>\n
                   litigation that the petitioner got a shop vacated from<\/p>\n
                   one Jyoti Rana. He let it out vide a rent deed to one<\/p>\n
                   Manoj Aggarwal, the fact which is clear from the<\/p>\n
                   photocopy of the register of deed writer. Now here<\/p>\n
                   we     are    deciding   the   question   of   bonafide<\/p>\n
                   requirement which I find is not based on the<\/p>\n
                   documents alone. The conduct of the parties is very<\/p>\n
                   relevant. The petitioner has not come to the Court<\/p>\n
                   with clean hands. He has concealed the material<\/p>\n
                   facts from the Court. He has denied the fact that he<\/p>\n
                   has rented out the property to one Manoj Aggarwal<\/p>\n
                   but this photocopy of the extract of the register is<\/p>\n
                   clear evidence that the petitioner has rented out the<\/p>\n
                   portion which he got vacated under Section 13-B of
\n Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
                  the Act to one Manoj Aggarwal.      Now the bonafide<\/p>\n
                  requirement is that he wants to settle down in India.<\/p>\n
                  But he has not shown that how the property in<\/p>\n
                  dispute is required by him. The property in dispute<\/p>\n
                  is a commercial property. He has not proved that<\/p>\n
                  what type of business he wants to start. It is clear cut<\/p>\n
                  law that the petitioner can use this right only once in<\/p>\n
                  a life. Now filing four different applications against<\/p>\n
                  different tenants for the vacation of the commercial<\/p>\n
                  property goes to show that his intention is only to get<\/p>\n
                  the property vacated and then rent it out to different<\/p>\n
                  tenants. This desire of the petitioner is clear from his<\/p>\n
                  conduct. The case would ;have been otherwise if he<\/p>\n
                  has proved that he wants to start a particular<\/p>\n
                  business which he has to run in different shops<\/p>\n
                  which are under the occupation of different tenants.<\/p>\n
                  Now as per the judgment Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr.<\/p>\n
                  Mahesh Chand Gupta 1999(2) RCR 141 (discussed<\/p>\n
                  supra), it has been beautifully rules that requirement<\/p>\n
                  is   not   a   mere   desire.   Degree    of   intensity<\/p>\n
                  contemplated by requirement is much higher than in<\/p>\n
                  mere desire. The Judge of facts should place<\/p>\n
                  himself in the arm chair of landlord and then ask<\/p>\n
                  question to himself whether in the given facts, the<\/p>\n
                  need to occupy the premises can be said to be<\/p>\n
                  natural, real and honest. Similarly, in Baldev Singh
\n Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
                   Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini 2006 AIR (SC) 59; 2005(2)<\/p>\n
                   RCR    (Rent)   470;    2005(4)   RCR     (Civil)   492<\/p>\n
                   (discussed supra), it has been held that if the<\/p>\n
                   landlord fails to prove that requirement is not<\/p>\n
                   bonafide and is a pretext to get the accommodation<\/p>\n
                   vacated, then he is not entitled to the ejectment.<\/p>\n
                   The landlord has to prove that for which purpose he<\/p>\n
                   wants to get the property vacated from the tenants.<\/p>\n
                   Now going through the pleadings and evidence, it is<\/p>\n
                   clear that the intention shown is that he wants to<\/p>\n
                   settle down in India along with his wife with his nears<\/p>\n
                   and dears. The property in the petition is a<\/p>\n
                   commercial property. It is clear that Petitioner is<\/p>\n
                   having sufficient accommodation with him which is<\/p>\n
                   residential one and how the commercial property is<\/p>\n
                   required by him, is a mystery. Accordingly, this issue<\/p>\n
                   is decided against the petitioner and in favour of the<\/p>\n
                   respondent”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         I have heard Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioner. He has drawn my attention to the site plan attached with the<\/p>\n
petition as Annexure P1. Perusal of the site plan will show that the<\/p>\n
property is 75′ x 75′ consist of many shops and has been rented out to<\/p>\n
various persons.\n<\/p>\n
         Mr. Jindal also drawn my attention to Annexure P4, statement<\/p>\n
of one tenant Parveen Kumar. He has drawn my attention to his cross-<\/p>\n
examination wherein he has admitted that it is correct that the board
\n Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
does not contain      any contact number and name of seller.         He has<\/p>\n
further stated that statement of Manoj Aggarwal was put to the tenant<\/p>\n
and tenant agreed that the shop was tenanted to Manoj Aggarwal with<\/p>\n
an understanding that he will vacate the same as and when possession<\/p>\n
from another tenant is taken. To buttress this argument, Mr. Jindal has<\/p>\n
further stated that shop was rented out to Manoj Aggarwal out of<\/p>\n
necessity as electricity meter was there and he was to look after it and<\/p>\n
there was no other option except to rent out the shop to Manoj<\/p>\n
Aggarwal. It has been further stated that the premises is divided into two<\/p>\n
parts and the other portion in which the shops have been situated had<\/p>\n
been purchased by the petitioner as owner and the other part where the<\/p>\n
shop was rented out to Manoj Aggarwal was purchased by his wife<\/p>\n
Swaran Kaur. It was further stated that the petitioner does not own any<\/p>\n
other building.\n<\/p>\n
            A perusal of eviction petition filed will show that the petitioner<\/p>\n
not only requires the premises in dispute but other residential and non-<\/p>\n
residential premises which are with other tenants. Learned Rent<\/p>\n
Controller has held the property to be commercial and has concluded<\/p>\n
that the landlord had not specified as to what business he has to start in<\/p>\n
the evening of his life when after his retirement he would come to<\/p>\n
Jalandhar. Coupled with this, learned Rent Controller has taken into<\/p>\n
consideration the conduct of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the<\/p>\n
property which has been purchased by Swaran Kaur, petitioner is<\/p>\n
landlord.\n<\/p>\n
            A specific averment made in eviction petition is that landlord<\/p>\n
does not own or possess any other non-residential building.
\n Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
            Earlier, ejectment petition against Jyoti Rana was also filed by<\/p>\n
the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said<\/p>\n
petition was withdrawn.      If this argument is accepted, it in no way<\/p>\n
materially affects the findings arrived by learned Rent Controller which<\/p>\n
are just.\n<\/p>\n
            The findings of learned Rent Controller are not such which can<\/p>\n
be said to be perverse. This can be one view which can be reasonably<\/p>\n
drawn and from appreciation of the evidence, the vie w taken by learned<\/p>\n
Rent Controller cannot be said to be perfunctory.<\/p>\n
            While exercising my revisional jurisdiction, no interference is<\/p>\n
warranted. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same<\/p>\n
is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
\n                                                                  Judge
\nNovember 10, 2008
\n“DK”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Gian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008 Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4609 of 2008 Date of Decision: 10.11.2008 Gian Chand … Petitioner Versus Parveen Kumar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: […]<\/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-54020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-29T01:06:22+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\\\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-29T01:06:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1784,\"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\\\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Gian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-29T01:06:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Gian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-29T01:06:22+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\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-29T01:06:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008"},"wordCount":1784,"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\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008","name":"Gian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-29T01:06:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gian-chand-vs-parveen-kumar-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gian Chand vs Parveen Kumar on 10 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/54020","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=54020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}