{"id":66133,"date":"2008-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-07-14T01:09:17","modified_gmt":"2015-07-13T19:39:17","slug":"smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008<\/div>\n
RSA No.811 of 2005(O&M)                            1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                            RSA No.811 of 2005(O&M)\n                                            Date of decision: 18.9.2008\n\nSmt. Chandro                                       ...... Appellant\n\n                                versus\n\nPrabhati and others                                .......Respondents\n\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG\n\n                         ****\n<\/pre>\n
Present:     Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.<\/p>\n
                         ****<\/p>\n
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J .\n<\/p>\n
CM No.960-C of 2005<\/p>\n
            For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 20 days<\/p>\n
in filing the appeal is condoned.\n<\/p>\n
             CM stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
RSA No.811 of 2005(O&M)<\/p>\n
1.           This regular second appeal has been filed by defendant No.2<\/p>\n
challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the<\/p>\n
suit of plaintiff-respondents for permanent injunction restraining the<\/p>\n
defendant-appellant from interfering in the possession and cultivation of the<\/p>\n
suit land has been decreed.\n<\/p>\n
2.           Briefly, the case of the plaintiffs is that Sheo Lal predecessor-<\/p>\n
in-interest of the   plaintiffs and the proforma defendant No.3 was in<\/p>\n
possession of the suit land for the last 65 years as tenant on payment of<\/p>\n
Rs.253\/- as rent per annum to be paid to the owner Fateh Lal. Since Sheo<\/p>\n
Lal was tenant prior to 1956, so he could not be evicted from the suit land.<\/p>\n
Later on, Nand Kishore became the owner of the suit land and he did not
\n RSA No.811 of 2005(O&M)                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
give notice regarding change of ownership to Sheo Lal, but in any case,<\/p>\n
Sheo Lal became the tenant under Nand Kishore. Sheo Lal expired and<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs and proforma defendant No.3 became tenant over the suit<\/p>\n
land. One Girdhari son of Fateh Lal in connivance with Nand Kishore and<\/p>\n
Patwari of the village got wrong entries in the revenue record . After getting<\/p>\n
wrong entries in the revenue record, Girdhari Lal filed a suit for possession<\/p>\n
and recovery in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul which<\/p>\n
was dismissed on 5.2.1993 and it was held that Girdhari lal had no concern<\/p>\n
with the possession or cultivation of the suit land.      Appeal against the<\/p>\n
aforesaid order was also dismissed on 18.11.1995 by the Collector<\/p>\n
Narnaul. Revision before the Commissioner, Gurgaon was also dismissed<\/p>\n
on 16.1.1996. There is a decree dated 1.10.1971 in which it was held<\/p>\n
that Sheo Lal was tenant under Nand Kishore on payment of Rs.253\/- per<\/p>\n
annum as rent. Thus, the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant No.3 being<\/p>\n
the legal heirs of Sheo Lal were in possession of the suit land as tenant<\/p>\n
under Nand Kishore and defendants No.1 and 2 had no concern<\/p>\n
whatsoever with the same. They had sown the crops in the suit land and<\/p>\n
defendants No.1 and 2 were bent upon destroying the crops and taking<\/p>\n
the possession of the suit land forcibly. So the plaintiffs have filed this suit<\/p>\n
seeking decree of permanent injunction for restraining defendants No.1<\/p>\n
and 2 from interfering the possession and cultivation of the land measuring<\/p>\n
21 bighas 17 biswas Khewat No.1677 Khatoni No.2411 and 2412, Khasra<\/p>\n
numbers 26(5-13), 32(5-10), 56 min(7-4) and 61(3-10) situated in Tehsil<\/p>\n
Narnaul District Mohindergarh.\n<\/p>\n
3.           The defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement and<\/p>\n
raised preliminary objections qua maintainability, non-joinder of Nand<\/p>\n
Kishore as a party, suppressing the material facts, locus-standi, time<\/p>\n
barred and estoppel. On merits, the defendants No.1 and 2 pleaded in the
\n RSA No.811 of 2005(O&M)                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
written statement that Bholu, father of defendant No.2 (Chandro, wife of<\/p>\n
Siri Ram) was in cultivating possession of the land measuring 10 bighas 14<\/p>\n
biswas comprised in Khasra numbers 56(7-4) and 61(3-10) out of the suit<\/p>\n
land.    Bholu expired in the year 1980 and thereafter defendant No.2<\/p>\n
forcibly entered into possession of the suit land and since 25.4.1980 she<\/p>\n
was in open, hostile and continuous possession of this land as such the<\/p>\n
possession of defendant No.2 over this land measuring 10 bighas 14<\/p>\n
biswas has ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession. It was<\/p>\n
denied that Sheo Lal was ever a tenant under Nand Kishore. It was also<\/p>\n
denied that the defendants had colluded with Nand Kishore and Halqa<\/p>\n
Patwari and got entries in the revenue record. It was also alleged that<\/p>\n
there was entry of defendant No.2 in the khasra girdawari for the year<\/p>\n
1984-85 and thereafter, entries in the name of the plaintiffs were got<\/p>\n
entered illegally which were null and void. It was also alleged that neither<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 nor her father Bholu was a party to the Civil Suit in which<\/p>\n
decree was passed on 1.10.1971. It was also denied that Girdhari had<\/p>\n
filed any suit for eviction against the plaintiffs and proforma defendant<\/p>\n
No.3. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.<\/p>\n
4.            After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court<\/p>\n
vide its judgment and decree dated 5.9.2002 decreed the suit of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
5.            Being aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal before the<\/p>\n
Lower Appellate Court. It is also relevant to mention here that during the<\/p>\n
pendency of the appeal an application for amendment of the written<\/p>\n
statement was filed by the defendant-appellant to take the plea that the<\/p>\n
appellants are in possession as tenant gair marusi and they have become<\/p>\n
owners by way of adverse possession.         However, this application was<\/p>\n
dismissed. The Lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated
\n RSA No.811 of 2005(O&M)                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
16.9.2004, while dismissing the appeal held that the appellants are not in<\/p>\n
possession of any part of the suit land, nor the adverse possession had<\/p>\n
ripened.\n<\/p>\n
6.            Still not satisfied with the judgment and decrees of the Courts<\/p>\n
below, the defendant No.2-appellant has filed the instant appeal before<\/p>\n
this Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.            I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
8.            The claim of the appellant is that earlier Bholu was         in<\/p>\n
possession of the land measuring 10 bighas 14 biswas and after his death,<\/p>\n
the defendant-appellant came into forcible possession and thereafter her<\/p>\n
possession had ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession. In<\/p>\n
support of her case she has placed reliance on khasra girdawari EX.D2<\/p>\n
from 1.10.1959 to 2.3.1963, Ex.D3 from 14.10.1963 to 6.3.1967, Ex.D4<\/p>\n
from 7.10.1967 to 12.3.1970, Ex.PX\/5 for the year 1994-95 and jamabandi<\/p>\n
PX\/14 for the year 1989-90.        On the basis of these documents, the<\/p>\n
appellant wanted to establish that Bolu, her father had been shown in<\/p>\n
possession of the above said land. The arguments of the appellant that<\/p>\n
Bholu has been shown in possession of the suit land cannot be accepted in<\/p>\n
view of the entries in the revenue record because in these documents,<\/p>\n
Girdhari Lal, the father of Nand Kishore had been shown as owner of the<\/p>\n
suit land i.e land in dispute measuring 10 bighas 14 biswas whereas Sheo<\/p>\n
Lal has been shown as tenant under Girdhari Lal and others and Bholu the<\/p>\n
father of the defendant-appellant has been shown as sub-tenant under<\/p>\n
Sheo Lal.\n<\/p>\n
9.            On the other hand, in the revenue record Exs.D5 to D7 Nand<\/p>\n
Kishore is shown as owner of the land measuring 10 bighas 14 biswas<\/p>\n
while Girdhari Lal has been shown as tenant without payment of any rent.<\/p>\n
In these documents, Sheo Lal has been shown as tenant and Bholu has
\n RSA No.811 of 2005(O&M)                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
been shown as sub-tenant. The argument of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant that Bholu has been shown as tenant over the suit land cannot<\/p>\n
be accepted in view of the entries mentioned in the jamabandies and<\/p>\n
khasra girdawaries. Moreover, these documents cannot be looked into<\/p>\n
because they are beyond pleadings of the defendants. It is also relevant to<\/p>\n
mention that Nand Kishore had filed an ejectment application which was<\/p>\n
decided on 19.12.1982 (Ex.DW2\/A) titled as Nand Kishore v. Girdhari Lal<\/a><\/p>\n
etc. In this application, it is mentioned that Sheo Lal was a tenant while<\/p>\n
Bholu was sub-tenant. Siri Ram-defendant filed an application Ex.PW3\/A<\/p>\n
in which he mentioned that since Bholu had expired, he should be<\/p>\n
impleaded as party in place of Bholu. The written statement of Sheo Lal<\/p>\n
and Bholu is mark DA on record of the ejectment application in which it has<\/p>\n
been admitted that Sheo Lal was in possession of the land in dispute as<\/p>\n
tenant gair marusi. It is also mentioned in this written statement that Bholu<\/p>\n
was brother of Sheo Lal and Bholu used to help Sheo Lal in cultivating the<\/p>\n
suit land. Thus, there is a clear admission on the part of Bholu Ram and<\/p>\n
Siri Ram himself has admitted that Sheo Lal was in possession of the suit<\/p>\n
land. Then after his death entering into possession by his daughter does<\/p>\n
not arise at all. The said application of Siri Ram was dismissed. The Lower<\/p>\n
Appellate Court has also recorded a finding of fact that in Civil Suit titled<\/p>\n
Suresh Chand etc. v. Sohan Lal, the copy of which is Ex.PX\/6, the suit of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1.10.1971<\/p>\n
declaring Sheo Lal as exclusive tenant over the whole suit land and holding<\/p>\n
that Girdhari Lal has no concern with respect to the possession and<\/p>\n
tenancy of the said land. Thus, from a bare perusal of plaint Ex.PW2\/A,<\/p>\n
written statement mark DA and judgement Ex.PX\/6, it is apparently<\/p>\n
established that only Sheo Lal was tenant of whole suit land measuring 21<\/p>\n
bighas 17 biswas since 1940 and Girdhari Lal          and Bholu had got no
\n RSA No.811 of 2005(O&M)                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
concern with it either as tenant or otherwise. Another fact has also been<\/p>\n
proved on record that vide judgment and decree dated 27.4.1987 Ex.PX\/1<\/p>\n
passed in Civil Suit No.442 of 1981, the plaintiff was again declared as an<\/p>\n
exclusive tenant of the whole suit land and restraining owner and Girdhari<\/p>\n
Lal not to interfere in possession. Thereafter, the appeal filed against the<\/p>\n
said judgment was dismissed vide judgment Ex.PX\/2 on 13.11.1991<\/p>\n
holding that the plaintiffs and proforma respondent No.3 in the suit were<\/p>\n
direct tenant under Nand Kishore. The objection of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellant that the document mark DA, is not admissible into evidence is<\/p>\n
without any substance as the written statement mark DA was tendered by<\/p>\n
the defendants themselves in their evidence treating it as genuine and duly<\/p>\n
executed documents. Thus, they cannot raise an objection with respect to<\/p>\n
the admissibility of this document. Moreover, this document is 30 years old<\/p>\n
document and has come from the Court record and has been produced by<\/p>\n
the appellant i.e daughter of one of the executants Bholu and the same is<\/p>\n
admissible as per Section 90 of Indian evidence Act.<\/p>\n
10.         The objection regarding that all the judgments mentioned<\/p>\n
above, neither Bholu nor the defendant-appellant were party        in these<\/p>\n
judgments and they do not bind them.        This objection of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the defendant-appellant is also not acceptable. Bholu himself<\/p>\n
admitted in para No.16 of his written statement mark DA that judgment<\/p>\n
dated 1.10.1971 Ex.PX\/6 was final between the parties including Bholu.<\/p>\n
So, Bholu himself and defendant Smt. Chandro being his daughter has<\/p>\n
claimed right through him are also bound by it. Further, all other judgments<\/p>\n
mentioned above have been passed upon judgement dated 1.10.1971<\/p>\n
Ex.PX\/6, so these documents are also binding upon them as it has been<\/p>\n
so held in Tirumala Tirupati Dvasthanams v. K.M.Krishnaiah<\/a> 1998(1)<\/p>\n
SLJ 932(S.C.). It is observed that even judgment between their party is
\n RSA No.811 of 2005(O&M)                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
admissible under Section 13 of Indian Evidence Act.<\/p>\n
11.         The plea of adverse possession to defendant No.2 is also not<\/p>\n
available because the possession for a period of 12 years could not be<\/p>\n
estalished. Ex.D8 and Ex.D9 reveals that the possession of the appellant<\/p>\n
Smt. Chandro has been shown from 1980-85 i.e. only five years and that<\/p>\n
too as sub-tenant under plaintiff-respondents.        So, the question of<\/p>\n
declaring her as owner on account of adverse possession does not arise.<\/p>\n
The authority cited by the learned counsel for the defendants i.e. Asa<\/p>\n
Singh and another v. Mansha Ram another AIR 1930 Lahore 237 is not<\/p>\n
applicable to the facts of the present case because the facts of the present<\/p>\n
case are totally different.   So, this ruling does not help the defendant-<\/p>\n
appellant in any manner. Therefore, defendants No.1 and 2 are not in<\/p>\n
possession of any part of the suit land i.e land in dispute measuring10<\/p>\n
bighas 14 biswas nor the adverse possession of the appellant had ripened<\/p>\n
into ownership.\n<\/p>\n
12.         Thus, no fault can be found with the findings of fact recorded<\/p>\n
by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in the present<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
13.         No merit. Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 18, 2008                         (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)\nps                                                JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Smt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008 RSA No.811 of 2005(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.811 of 2005(O&M) Date of decision: 18.9.2008 Smt. Chandro …… Appellant versus Prabhati and others …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG **** Present: Mr. […]<\/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-66133","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-13T19:39:17+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-13T19:39:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2013,\"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\\\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-13T19:39:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Smt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-13T19:39:17+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-13T19:39:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008"},"wordCount":2013,"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\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008","name":"Smt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-13T19:39:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-chandro-vs-prabhati-and-others-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Chandro vs Prabhati And Others on 18 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/66133","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=66133"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66133\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66133"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66133"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66133"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}