{"id":69279,"date":"2008-11-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-20T13:43:21","modified_gmt":"2018-08-20T08:13:21","slug":"shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Shyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 November, 2008<\/div>\n
RSA No.3474 of 2008           -1 -\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                     RSA No.3474 of 2008\n\n                                     Date of Decision: 7.11.2008\n\n\nShyam Kumar and others\n\n                                                         ..Appellants.\nVs.\n\nSmt.Chandrakalan and others\n\n                                                         ..Respondents.\n\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN\n\n                        ***\n\nPresent:    Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.\n\n                        ***\n\nRakesh Kumar Jain, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment and<\/p>\n
decree of both the Courts below whereby their suit for declaration,<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction and permanent injunction has been dismissed.<\/p>\n
            The plaintiffs have alleged that they are the sons of defendant<\/p>\n
No.1, who is the only daughter of Late Munshi Ram. It is further alleged<\/p>\n
that defendants No.1 and 2 were having common ancestor namely Shadi<\/p>\n
Lal, who was having two sons namely Hazari Lal and Munshi Ram. Hazari<\/p>\n
Lal was having a son namely Roshan Lal alongwith other children and<\/p>\n
Munshi Ram was having only one daughter namely Smt.Chandra Kalan<\/p>\n
(defendant No.1). Now Shadi Lal and Munshi Ram are no more in this<\/p>\n
world. The common ancestor Shadi Lal was having immovable property in
\n RSA No.3474 of 2008             -2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
Khewat Khata Nos.220, 251 and 252 in Khasra Nos.63, 88, 470, 557 and<\/p>\n
913. Defendant No.1 became absolute owner in possession of a share<\/p>\n
equivalent to 4\/27 in the property of her father Munshi Ram. It is alleged by<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 was staying with them and she was being<\/p>\n
looked after very well. But in the month of November 2005, defendant No.2<\/p>\n
and his brother namely Gajraj came to defendant No.1 at Delhi at the<\/p>\n
address of plaintiffs and informed that Hazari Lal is not keeping well and<\/p>\n
wanted to see her. Defendant No.1 went with defendant No.2 and said<\/p>\n
Gajraj in order to enquire about the welfare of said Hazari Lal and it was<\/p>\n
assured by defendant No.2 and his brother Gajraj that defendant No.1 will<\/p>\n
come back after 2-3 days but even after a week, defendant No.1 did not<\/p>\n
return, therefore, plaintiff No.3 went to bring defendant No.1 to village Tikli<\/p>\n
but defendant No.2 and his brother Gajraj asked plaintiff No.3 to allow<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 to stay there for few more days and likewise in spite of<\/p>\n
repeated visits by the plaintiffs to bring defendant No.1, defendant No.2<\/p>\n
kept on postponing the return and thus almost three months’ time had<\/p>\n
expired. On 31.3.2006, plaintiff No.3 again went to bring defendant No.1 at<\/p>\n
village Tikli but he was surprised to found that defendant No.1 left the<\/p>\n
house in morning. He was further informed that defendant No.1 has<\/p>\n
transferred the land which she was owning, in the name of Hazari Lal and<\/p>\n
his son about two and half months back. When defendant No.1 did not reach<\/p>\n
to her house, the plaintiffs suspected some foul play and danger to the life of<\/p>\n
their mother at the hands of defendant No.2 and his accomplices and in<\/p>\n
those circumstances plaintiff No.1 submitted a complaint to the in-charge<\/p>\n
police post Badshahpur Gurgaon. Plaintiffs made search for their mother<\/p>\n
and because of the pressure of police, defendant No.1 was produced in
\n RSA No.3474 of 2008            -3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
police post Badshahpur by defendant No.2 and his accomplices. It is further<\/p>\n
alleged that defendant No.1 was in custody and effective control of<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 and because of undue influence, coercion and force,<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 expressed her intention to reside with defendant No.2 and<\/p>\n
not with relatives. The plaintiffs were suspecting foul play at the hands of<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 and his family members and accordingly after enquiry, they<\/p>\n
found that the immovable property of defendant No.1 was got transferred by<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 in his name by way of a release deed dated 12.1.2006 duly<\/p>\n
registered with the office of defendant No.3. After obtaining certified copy<\/p>\n
of the release deed, the plaintiffs came to know that the release deed was<\/p>\n
allegedly executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and<\/p>\n
Amar Singh and Ram Kishan were shown to be witnesses to the said release<\/p>\n
deed. The release deed dated 12.1.2006 was registered with defendant No.3<\/p>\n
vide Vasika No.21520 which is neither a valid document nor sustainable in<\/p>\n
the eyes of law as it was got executed by putting defendant No.1 under<\/p>\n
pressure, fear and coercion. It is further alleged that plaintiffs approached<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 and his family members and requested to get the said release<\/p>\n
deed cancelled but the same was not done, therefore, the present suit was<\/p>\n
filed seeking a declaration that the release deed dated 12.1.2006 executed by<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 before respondent No.3, is<\/p>\n
illegal and void. It is further prayed in the suit that a decree for mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction be granted directing respondent No.3 to cancel the release deed<\/p>\n
as well as mutation, if any, sanctioned on the basis of release deed and<\/p>\n
further direct defendant No.2 to hand over peaceful possession of the land<\/p>\n
in question to the plaintiffs. It was further prayed that a decree for<\/p>\n
permanent injunction be also passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against
\n RSA No.3474 of 2008            -4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
the defendants restraining them from creating any charge over the property<\/p>\n
in question. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed joint written statement and<\/p>\n
contested the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Besides raising preliminary<\/p>\n
objections regarding cause of action, locus standi, concealment of material<\/p>\n
facts, misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel and<\/p>\n
maintainability etc., it was alleged on merits that FIR under Section 325 IPC<\/p>\n
has been registered against the plaintiffs. It was denied that defendant No.1<\/p>\n
was staying with the plaintiffs and she was being looked after very well by<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs and there was not an iota of complaint by defendant No.1<\/p>\n
against the plaintiffs. It is rather pleaded that plaintiffs had never looked<\/p>\n
after their mother (defendant No.1) and about six months back, she was<\/p>\n
forcibly thrown out by the plaintiffs from their house. Consequently she had<\/p>\n
to take shelter in the house of defendant No.2, who happens to be his cousin<\/p>\n
where she started residing and defendant No.2 gave her shelter, food and all<\/p>\n
other amenities of life. It is denied that in November 2005, defendant No.2<\/p>\n
had gone to defendant No.1 at Delhi at the address of plaintiffs where<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 was residing and informed him that Hazari Lal father of<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 was not keeping well. It was further denied that plaintiff<\/p>\n
No.3 had ever visited their house and despite his repeated visits, return of<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 was postponed. As a matter of fact all the allegations<\/p>\n
contained in the plaint were denied by the defendants. The plaintiffs<\/p>\n
controverted the stand of the defendants by way of replication and the basic<\/p>\n
issue framed by the trial Court was “as to whether the release deed dated<\/p>\n
12.1.2006 is an act of fraud and misrepresentation.”\n<\/p>\n
            The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence on<\/p>\n
record, came to the conclusion that the release deed was executed by
\n RSA No.3474 of 2008              -5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant No.1, which has been challenged by plaintiffs as her sons but in<\/p>\n
the written statement, it has been denied that release deed is neither a valid<\/p>\n
document nor sustainable in the eyes of law. Rather it was found by the<\/p>\n
Court below that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the property in<\/p>\n
question in view of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and had a<\/p>\n
right to alienate the property. It was further observed that had there been any<\/p>\n
undue pressure exerted upon defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 then it was<\/p>\n
for her to challenge the same. It was also noticed that defendant No.1 has<\/p>\n
filed a separate suit to challenge the release deed, therefore, it was found<\/p>\n
that so far as plaintiffs are concerned, they have no right to file the present<\/p>\n
suit and the same was dismissed. In the first appeal also, the Appellate<\/p>\n
Court returned same finding that defendant No.1 being absolute owner of<\/p>\n
the suit land had every right to deal with the same in any manner and if<\/p>\n
there was any fraud then only defendant No.1 had a right to challenge the<\/p>\n
same for which she had already filed a civil suit to that effect.<\/p>\n
             Sh.P.R.Yadav, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n
was at pains while submitting that there was a fraud committed upon<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 by defendant No.2 while keeping her in captivity and then<\/p>\n
to get release deed from her of the property in his favour, therefore, it was<\/p>\n
submitted that it was a case of undue influence exerted by defendant No.2<\/p>\n
upon defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, has<\/p>\n
failed to justify the suit filed by the plaintiffs in view of the fact that<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 who is the owner of the property and had executed the<\/p>\n
release deed herself has filed a suit against defendant No.2, therefore, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit in respect of the property.<\/p>\n
             In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the
\n RSA No.3474 of 2008           -6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
present appeal, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to<\/p>\n
costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                         (Rakesh Kumar Jain)\n7.11.2008                                      Judge\nMeenu\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Shyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 November, 2008 RSA No.3474 of 2008 -1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3474 of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.11.2008 Shyam Kumar and others ..Appellants. Vs. Smt.Chandrakalan and others ..Respondents. CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR […]<\/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-69279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 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\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-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=\"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-20T08:13:21+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-20T08:13:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1471,\"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\\\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Shyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-20T08:13:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 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":"Shyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 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\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-20T08:13:21+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-20T08:13:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008"},"wordCount":1471,"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\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008","name":"Shyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-20T08:13:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shyam-kumar-and-others-vs-smt-chandrakalan-and-others-on-7-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shyam Kumar And Others vs Smt.Chandrakalan And Others on 7 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\/69279","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=69279"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69279\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}