{"id":67748,"date":"2008-03-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-19T12:13:22","modified_gmt":"2017-11-19T06:43:22","slug":"gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, V.S. Sirpurkar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2005 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nGurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPiara Singh (D) Through Lrs\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/03\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.   2005 OF 2008
\n(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8585 of 2007)<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA,  J :\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tDefendants in the Court below are the appellants before us.  They are
\nheirs and legal representatives of one Gurcharan Singh.   He was the owner
\nof the lands bearing Survey Nos. 101, 102, 159, 38, 85, Khatauni Nos. 118,
\n119, 224, 228, 45, 100 admeasuring 98 canals 19 marlas situated in Village
\nBora Walli, Tehsil Zira in the State of Punjab.  He entered into an agreement
\nfor sale of the aforementioned lands on or about 5.10.1964 with the plaintiff-
\nrespondent  A registered deed of sale was to be executed in terms thereof on
\nor before 15.6.1965.   Indisputably, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 7,000\/-
\nout of a total consideration of Rs. 15,000\/- to the said Gurcharan Singh on
\n5.10.1964.   He died on 13.3.1965.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAllegedly, prior thereto, the said Gurcharan Singh despite having been
\ncalled upon to execute and register the document did not come to the
\nRegistration Office.   A suit for specific performance of the agreement was
\nfiled against the appellants on 25.3.1966.   In the alternative, it was prayed
\nthat a sum of Rs. 7,000\/- be paid to the respondent together with interest.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tAppellants herein in their written statement denied and disputed
\nexecution of the said agreement by Gurcharan Singh alleging that he was a
\ndrunkard.   It was also alleged that Gurcharan Singh had executed a Will in
\ntheir favour.   In terms of a stipulation contained in the said agreement dated
\n5.10.1964 the possession of the lands was delivered to the vendee.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe said suit was decreed on 31.5.1966.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAppellants preferred an appeal thereagainst.   By a judgment and
\norder dated 20.10.1976, the said appeal was allowed and the suit was
\nremanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tFirst respondent filed an application for amendment of plaint
\nchanging the area of the land from 98 canals, 19 marlas to 89 canals, 17
\nmarlas.   Appellant in response to the said application, although admitted the
\nrelationship between the parties, but without making any specific averments
\nstated that as to why the said application should not be allowed merely
\n“other amendments are opposed”.\n<\/p>\n
\tAppellants also filed a suit against the first respondent for recovery of
\npossession on 19.12.1977.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tRespondent No. 1 filed another application for amendment whereby
\nthe area of the suit land was amended to 94 canals 3 marlas.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tBoth the suits were heard together.   The learned Trial Judge, refused
\nto grant a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale, but
\ndecreed the suit in favour of respondent No. 1 granting his alternative prayer
\nfor recovery for a sum of Rs. 8,260\/- from the appellants herein.    In
\narriving at the said conclusion, the learned Trial Judge noticed the averments
\nmade in the plaint which are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“The plaintiff has been and is ready to perform his
\npart of the contract.   The plaintiff served a notice on
\nShrimati Prithpal Kaur for herself on behalf of her
\nminor sons and daughter who are defendants through
\nhis counsel on 8.6.65 intimating her about the above
\ncontract.   Defendant No. 2 Shrimati Prithpal Kaur
\nrefused to take delivery of the notice.  The notice is
\nattached therewith.”\n<\/p>\n
\tOpining that the requirements to make averments in regard to
\nreadiness and willingness on the part of vendee to perform his part of
\ncontract as contained in clause (c) of Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act,
\nhad not been satisfied, it was held:-\n<\/p>\n
“The language of paras Nos. 3 and 5 of plaint will
\nshow that the plaintiff has averred that he is ready to
\nperform his part of the contract, but he has failed to
\naver that he has always been also wiling to perform
\nhis part of the contract.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tAn appeal was preferred thereagainst by the respondent No. 1 which
\nwas marked as Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1978.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe First Appellate Court disagreed with the findings of the learned
\nTrial Judge as regards readiness and willingness on the part of the first
\nrespondent to perform his part of contract holding that such a strict
\nconstruction of the pleading are not warranted.
\n\tIt was opined:-\n<\/p>\n
“The appellant stated that he had always been ready to
\nperform his part of the contract.  It was contended that
\nit was not necessary to allege in the plaint that the
\nplaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of
\nthe contract but it is to be seen from the circumstances
\nof the case whether he was so ready and willing to get
\nthe sale deed executed.   The conduct of the appellant
\nfrom the very beginning was that he made all efforts
\nto get the sale deed executed and he had the required
\nmoney with him.   It was contended that the word
\nreadiness denotes the capacity of a purchaser to
\npurchase the land while the word willingness denotes
\nhis conduct.   In the plaint it was mentioned that the
\nappellant was ready to perform his part of the contract
\nand his willingness was to be inferred from his
\nconduct and even if the word willingness was missing
\nin the plaint that would not disentitle the plaintiff from
\nthe specific performance of the contract because in
\ncase all immoveable property damages do not furnish
\nadequate relief.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Court of First Appeal was of the opinion that as the
\nplaintiff\/respondent failed to show his readiness and willingness to perform
\nhis part of contract as contained in the said agreement of sale dated
\n5.10.1964, so far as the new khasra Nos. are concerned, he was not entitled
\nto a decree for specific performance of contract stating:
\n“In the present case by adding two khasra numbers
\nregarding which there was no contract of sale the
\nplaintiff-appellant made a change in the essential
\nconditions of the contract and thus he was not entitled to
\nspecific performance of the contract just as willingness of
\na purchaser can be inferred from his conduct.   Similarly
\nhis willingness in words is not necessary.   Where a
\npurchaser includes land in the plaint seeking its sale by
\nway of specific performance of the contract which was
\nnot originally the subject matter of the agreement he
\ncannot be considered to be a person who is willing to
\nperform his part of the contract.   The plaintiff should be
\nready and willing to perform his part of the contract
\nthrough-out the proceedings till the date of the decree and
\nif prior to that he negatives his readiness and willingness
\nto perform his part of the contract by his conduct he
\ncannot claim specific relief of the contract.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was furthermore observed:\n<\/p>\n
“..In a suit for specific performance of the contract of
\nsale the distinction between the conduct which would
\ndisentitle the plaintiff from specific performance and
\nthe conduct which would not so disentitle him is that
\nthe plaintiff’s conduct shows that he was really
\nunwilling to buy the property then he is disqualified
\nfrom specific performance but he was always willing to
\nbuy the property but in doing so made a mistake in
\ninsisting on something which he was not entitled to get
\nfrom the defendant then such mistake would not
\ndisqualify him from specific performance if the mistake
\nwas corrected in time and the plaintiff had made it clear
\nthat he had withdrawn the mistaken demand and the
\nmistake did not detract his essential willingness to
\npurchase the property.”\n<\/p>\n
10.\tTwo second appeals were filed by the first respondent before the High
\nCourt.   A learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court did
\nnot frame any substantial question of law at the outset and recorded as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
“After going through the record, I find that the
\napplication for amendment was filed on the basis that
\nin the Revenue papers the ownership of Gurcharan
\nSingh vendor was changed which must be due to
\nConsolidation and the application was not opposed by
\nthe opposite side except claim in costs which were
\nallowed by the order of the Trial Court dated 1st
\nJanuary, 1977.  It is further clear from the record that
\nin the written statement no plea was taken that
\nbecause of amendment there has been negation of
\ncontract.  On this basis it is urged by the learned
\ncounsel that the first appellate court had made out a
\nnew case in deciding the relief to the appellant on the
\nground of negation of contract.\n<\/p>\n
The other finding in the end of para is to the effect
\nthat the appellant had been ready and willing to
\nperform his part of the contract.  Admitted stay to
\ncontinue.”\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever, it appears that at a later stage, three substantial questions of
\nlaw were formulated namely:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tWhether there is negation of contract on account of
\nchange of khasra No.   pleaded by the plaintiff by way
\nof amendment in the plaint?\n<\/p>\n
2.\tWhether the plaintiff was ready and willing to
\nperform his part of the contract?\n<\/p>\n
3.\tWhether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for
\nspecific performance of agreement in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case?\n<\/p>\n
\tThe said appeals were allowed.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tMr. L. Nageswara Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
\nof the appellant would submit that none of the questions aforementioned
\ngive rise to any substantial question of law.   The third purported question
\naccording to the learned counsel is not at all a substantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n
The first question according to the learned counsel is essentially a
\nquestion of fact.   In regard to the second question, it was submitted that
\nalthough this Court in some decisions opined that it would be essentially a
\nquestion of fact but in some decisions point out that it would be a mixed
\nquestion of law and fact and thus, in any event, the same being not a
\nsubstantial question of law, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was furthermore urged that the High Court committed a serious
\nerror as a decree could not have been passed in favour of the first respondent
\nas the subject matter of the agreement had altered.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tMr.  Paramjit Singh Patwalia, the learned senior counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in view of the
\nchange in the Khasra Nos. or Khewat Nos. in the revenue records, an
\namendment had to be brought about.   The amendment having taken effect
\nfrom the date of the institution of the suit, the judgment of the High Court
\nshould not be interfered with.   It was urged that the learned Trial Judge as
\nalso the first Appellate Court having rejected the plea of the appellants as
\nregards the genuineness of the agreement dated 5.10.1964 and\/or purported
\nexecution of the Will by Gurcharan Singh, it is not a fit case where this
\nCourt should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was submitted that escalation in price by itself may also not be a
\nsufficient ground for interfering with the impugned judgment particularly
\nwhen the respondent had been in possession of the said land for a long time
\nand had made improvements thereupon.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tA suit for specific performance of contract provides for a
\ndiscretionary remedy.   The Court in terms of Section 20 of the said Act may
\nfor sufficient and cogent reasons refuse to grant a decree for specific
\nperformance of contract.  In a case of this nature, the Court essentially would
\nbe concerned with the identity of the land which was the subject matter of
\nagreement.    Like any other suit, the Court in terms of Order 7 Rule 7 of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure may, however, take into consideration the
\nsubsequent events including the change in the revenue survey numbers in
\nrespect of a particular land.   In other words, if the land in suit remains the
\nsame which was the subject matter of an Agreement of Sale, a decree for
\nspecific performance can be granted.\n<\/p>\n
The matter, however, would be different where having regard to the
\nconsolidation or any other proceedings, the subject matter of land itself
\nchanges resulting in substantive change in the original agreement.    In terms
\nof Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act , the Court must arrive at a
\nfinding that the plaintiff had not only averred, but also established readiness
\nand willingness on his part to perform his part of the contract.  In this case,
\nthe appellant paid a sum of Rs. 7,000\/- on the date of the execution of the
\nagreement.   It has been stated before us which has not been denied or
\ndisputed that at the time of filing of the suit itself, the first respondent
\ndeposited the balance amount of Rs. 8,000\/- in the Court.\n<\/p>\n
The original description of the suit land was as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Suit for specific performance of contract of sale in
\nrespect of the land measuring 98 Kls 19  marlas,
\nKhewat  No. 101,  102,  159, 38,  85,  Khatauni
\nNos. 118,  119,  224,  220,  228,  45,  100,  Khasra
\nNos.   63\t\t\t                           <\/span>
\n          7(8-0) 8(8-0) 9(8-0)<\/p>\n
63\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n13\/1(1-2) 14(8-0) 17\/1(7-7) 6\/3 (0-16) 5\/1 (5-0) 6\/2 (5-0)<\/p>\n
62\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>
\n14(8-0)  7\/2(0-13 3\/2(2-0) 4(8-0)  7\/1  (7-7)<\/p>\n
55\t\t\t56\t\t\t63
\n20\/1(3-16)\t\t13\/1(1-10)\t\t10(8-0)  18(8-0)”\n<\/p>\n
However, upon amendment, the description of the suit lands as they
\nstand now are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale
\ndated 5.10.64, that the defendant Kirandip Kaur or
\nin the alternative all the defendants should execute a
\nsale deed in respect of land measuring 94-kanals   3
\nmarlas, khewat No. 47, khatoni Nos. 76 min, 76, 79,
\nlilla Nos:\n<\/p>\n
Rect. 58\t    Rect. 56\t                Rect. 62<\/p>\n
13\/1(0-16)\t  13(1(1-10), \t7\/1\/2(2-0), 7\/1\/3(3-5)<\/p>\n
Rect. 62<\/p>\n
3\/2(2-0) 4\/1(2-8) 7\/2(0-13) 14(8-0), 5\/1(5-0) 6\/2 (5-8)<\/p>\n
Rect 65<\/p>\n
6\/5(0-16) 7(8-0) 9(8-0) 10\/1(6-12) 13\/2 (6-10) 14(8-\n<\/p>\n
0) 17\/1 (7-17) 18(8-0)”\n<\/p>\n
14.\tWe have noticed hereinbefore that the appellants did not spell out as
\nto what were his objections in regard to amendment of plaint.  It was merely
\nstated that “other amendments are opposed”. In response to the application
\nfor amendment it was stated;\n<\/p>\n
“the application for amendments is opposed, it is
\nbelated and after thought”\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIt is therefore, evident that Gurcharan Singh was given two new plots
\nwhich were not the subject matter of the original agreement.  The area also
\ndiminished.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhen the second application for amendment of plaint was filed, no
\nobjection thereto was raised.  Allegedly, in the suit for recovery of
\npossession, the appellants mentioned the same description of land.   How
\ndespite alteration in the description of the land in respect of a part of the suit
\npremises,  the respondent came into possession, if at all, is not known.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tWe are not oblivious of the findings of the learned Court or the First
\nAppellate Court that the plaintiff\/respondent did not bring on records any
\nmaterial to show that owing to consolidation proceedings or otherwise, there
\nhad been a change in the suit land in the sense that some other lands had
\nbeen allotted to Gurcharan Singh in stead and in place of the lands in suits.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tWe have noticed hereinbefore that the plaintiff\/respondent was
\ncategorical in his statement as to why the amendment had to be brought
\nabout, but neither the same was opposed nor any amended written
\nstatement\/additional written statement was filed.   Except the two plots,
\nidentity of the rest of the plots remained the same.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tMr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel may be right in his
\nsubmission that purported substantial questions of law as framed stricto
\nsensu do not answer the description as contained in sub-Section (5) of
\nSection 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  We, however, feel that the
\nproper substantial question which should have been framed having regard to
\nthe admitted position is as to whether the contract of sale came to an end
\nonly on account of change of Khasra Nos., although the subject matter of the
\nagreement substantially remained the same.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tIf on the admitted fact, it is found that at least substantial portion of
\nthe land remained the same, in our opinion, there does not exist any bar in
\ngranting a decree in respect of a part of the suit property.   For the said
\npurpose, even Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act would not stand as a bar.
\nSection 12 of the Specific Relief Act reads thus;
\n“Section 12 – Specific performance of part of contract
\n(1) Except as otherwise hereinafter provided in this section
\nthe court shall not direct the specific performance of a part
\nof a contract.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the
\nwhole of his part of it, but the part which must be left
\nunperformed be a only a small proportion to the whole in
\nvalue and admits of compensation in money, the court may,
\nat the suit of either party, direct the specific performance of
\nso much of the contract as can be performed, and award
\ncompensation in money for the deficiency.\n<\/p>\n
(3) Where a party to a contract is unable to perform the
\nwhole of his part of it, and the part which must be left
\nunperformed either–\n<\/p>\n
(a) forms a considerable part of the whole, though
\nadmitting of compensation in money; or\n<\/p>\n
(b) does not admit of compensation in money;\n<\/p>\n
he is not entitled to obtain a decree for specific
\nperformance; but the court may, at the suit of the other
\nparty, direct the party in default to perform specifically
\nso much of his part of the contract as he can perform, if
\nthe other party–\n<\/p>\n
(i) in a case falling under clause (a), pays or has paid
\nthe agreed consideration for the whole of the contract
\nreduced by the consideration for the part which must
\nbe left unperformed and a case falling under clause\n<\/p>\n
(b),1[pays or had paid] the consideration for the whole
\nof the contract without any abatement; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii) in either case, relinquishes all claims to the
\nperformance of the remaining part of the contract and
\nall right to compensation, either for the deficiency or
\nfor the loss or damage sustained by him through the
\ndefault of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
(4) When a part of a contract which, taken by itself, can and
\nought to be specifically performed, stands on a separate and
\nindependent footing from another part of the same contract
\nwhich cannot or ought not to be specifically performed, the
\ncourt may direct specific performance of the former part.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, for the reasons stated in the statutory provision, if a decree for
\nspecific performance cannot be granted in respect of the entirety, an option
\nin terms thereof has to be exercised.\n<\/p>\n
The rigours of Section 16(c) of the Act, however, are not such which
\nwould for all intent and purport to be strictly construed.   Indisputably, it is
\nnecessary to make averments in regard to the readiness and willingness as is
\nrequired under Section 16(c) of the Act in terms of Form 47 appended to the
\nCode of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tIt is, however, trite that, even for the said purpose, the entirety of the
\nplaint must be taken into consideration.   If upon reading the plaint in its
\nentirety, the Court comes to the conclusion that for all intent and purport, the
\nrequirements of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act stood complied
\nwith, no exception thereto can be taken.  We have noticed hereinbefore that
\nthe First Appellate Court inter alia opined that not only the plaintiff has
\nexpressed his readiness to purchase the land, his willingness to do so can be
\nculled out from other averments made in the plaint as and in particular the
\none where he had stated that he had gone to the Registration Office for
\ngetting the deed of sale executed and registered but it was the defendant,
\nwho did not turn up thereafter.    He has also fulfilled the criteria of his
\nreadiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract as not only he
\nhad paid a sum of Rs. 7,000\/- on the date of the execution of the agreement,
\nhe had deposited a balance sum of Rs. 8,000\/- on the date of presentation of
\nthe plaint.   As a vendee what he could do was to offer the balance amount
\nof consideration to the vendor and make arrangements for getting the sale
\ndeed executed and registered.   If he has done all that, we are of the opinion
\nthat the Court of First Appeal was right in holding that he was ready and
\nwilling to perform his part of the contract.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tThe Court of First Appeal, however, committed a serious error insofar
\nas it failed to take into consideration that the identity of a part of the land
\nbeing the same, it was not necessary to make any further averment or proof
\nthat he had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in
\nrespect of the subject matter of the agreement.   Readiness and willingness to
\nperform one’s part of the contract must be confined to the subject matter
\nthereof.   If subject matter of the suit remained the same only because
\nKhewat Nos. or Khatauni Nos. changed, the same ipso facto would not
\nchange.  To the extent the subject matter of the agreement remains the same,
\na suit for specific performance of the contract can be decreed.    Respondent,
\nfurthermore has all along been in possession of the major portion of the land
\nsince a long time.    He is said to have made improvements on the land.   It
\nwould be not, thus, equitable to deprive him from possession at least from
\nthat portion of the land which was the subject matter of the original
\nagreement.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tWe may at this stage also refer to a recent decision of this Court in
\nRamakrishna Pillai and Anr. v.  Muhammed Kunju and Ors.<\/a> [2008 (2)
\nSCALE 696]. The dispute before this court was whether the High Court had
\nerred in holding that the plea of readiness and willingness was not raised by
\nthe plaintiffs.  Allowing the appeal, it was held:
\n“The High Court’s judgment is clearly vulnerable.
\nFirstly, there was no dispute ever raised by the
\ndefendants about the readiness and willingness of
\nthe plaintiffs to fulfill their obligations. The High
\nCourt was clearly in error in holding that no plea
\nregarding readiness and willingness was raised. As
\nnoted above, the trial court in its judgment has
\nreferred to various portions of the averments in the
\nplaint where the plaintiffs had categorically stated
\nthat they were and are always willing to fulfill
\ntheir part of the obligations. The High Court also
\nfailed to notice that there was no plea either the
\nwritten statement or in the cross objections filed in
\nthe appeal before the High Court that the plaintiffs
\nwere not ready and willing to fulfill their part of
\nthe obligation.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tAs regards the findings of the High Court it was further held:
\n“The conclusions are clearly contrary to the
\npleadings of the plaintiffs. It was categorically
\nstated in the plaint in both the suits that the
\nplaintiffs are always ready and willing to fulfill
\ntheir part of the obligations and that defendants
\nwere evading the execution for one reason or the
\nother.”\n<\/p>\n
23.\tFor the views we have taken, we are of the opinion that we in exercise
\nof our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India would
\nrefuse to interfere with the judgment of the High Court, save and except to
\nthe extent the decree passed in respect of two new Khasra Nos. namely 63-
\nM\/13\/2(6-8) and 53M\/13\/1(0-16).\n<\/p>\n
24.\tHowever, having regard to the fact that the plaintiff\/respondent No. 1
\nwas denied the decree for specific performance of contract by two courts,
\nalthough he had been in possession of the lands, in question from 1964, this
\nCourt in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
\nConstitution of India as also Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act direct him
\nto pay a further sum of Rs. 30,000\/- to the appellant.  The said sum may be
\ndeposited within a period of six weeks from date.
\nOn deposit of the said sum, the Court should draw up a decree in
\nterms of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent.   There shall,
\nhowever, in the facts and circumstances of the case no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 2008 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, V.S. Sirpurkar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2005 of 2008 PETITIONER: Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs RESPONDENT: Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/03\/2008 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & V.S. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-67748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 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\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-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=\"2008-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-19T06:43:22+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-19T06:43:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3966,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-19T06:43:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 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":"Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 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\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-19T06:43:22+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-19T06:43:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008"},"wordCount":3966,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008","name":"Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-19T06:43:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurdial-kaur-d-through-lrs-vs-piara-singh-d-through-lrs-on-14-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gurdial Kaur (D) Through Lrs vs Piara Singh (D) Through Lrs on 14 March, 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\/67748","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=67748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}