{"id":6941,"date":"2009-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-13T13:34:36","modified_gmt":"2017-11-13T08:04:36","slug":"rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Rama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No.1678 of 2007                                        1\n\n\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                      CHANDIGARH\n\n                              R.S.A.No.1678 of 2007\n\n                              Date of Decision : 29.7.2009\n\nRama Nand and Another                             ...Appellants\n\n                              Versus\n\nPhool Singh and Others                            ...Respondents\n\nCORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA\n\nPresent: Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate,\n         for the appellants.\n\n          Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate,\n          for the respondents.\n\nHEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)\n<\/pre>\n
          The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, arising out of the suit<\/p>\n
for specific performance of an agreement dated 23.4.1996.<\/p>\n
          The plaintiff alleged that defendants are owner of land<\/p>\n
measuring 14 Kanals 12 Marlas and they agreed to sell the aforesaid land<\/p>\n
for a total consideration of Rs.2,70,000\/-. A sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- was<\/p>\n
paid as earnest money in the presence of the witnesses. The sale deed<\/p>\n
was to be executed and registered upto 1.6.1996 on payment of balance<\/p>\n
sale consideration of Rs.1,70,000\/- before the Sub Registrar. Since the<\/p>\n
sale deed was not executed as agreed, the plaintiff filed the present suit<\/p>\n
for specific performance on 8.6.1996.\n<\/p>\n
          Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. It was<\/p>\n
pleaded that an agreement was entered upon by the said defendants with
\n R.S.A.No.1678 of 2007                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs.2,70,000\/- per acre, but fraudulently the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has got recorded total sale consideration as Rs.2,70,000\/-. Name<\/p>\n
of defendant No.3 was also wrongly included in the agreement without<\/p>\n
knowledge of defendant Nos.1and 2. Defendant No.3 has not entered<\/p>\n
into any agreement with the plaintiffs. After the agreement was typed,<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 has signed on said agreement relying upon the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
Photocopy of the agreement was attached with the said written-statement.<\/p>\n
But before defendant No.1 could sign, he got the agreement read-over<\/p>\n
and came to know about the inclusion of name of the mother of the<\/p>\n
defendants and about the price.      Therefore, he refused to sign the<\/p>\n
agreement. The earnest money of Rs.1 lac, which was also to be received<\/p>\n
was also not paid. However, a photocopy of the agreement was given.<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the plaintiffs said that they will discuss with defendant No.3<\/p>\n
at residence and the necessary correction in respect of price will also be<\/p>\n
incorporated, but signatures of defendant No.1 and thumb impression of<\/p>\n
defendant No.3 were fraudulently put on the document. Even signatures<\/p>\n
of Lila Ram, witness was wrongly obtained. On the front page, it was<\/p>\n
wrongly written that Rs.1 lac in cash paid. Such writing was inserted<\/p>\n
subsequently. Thus, the agreement was said to be totally fraudulent and<\/p>\n
without consideration.   It was also mentioned that an FIR has been<\/p>\n
lodged by defendant No.3 against the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
          In a separate written-statement on behalf of defendant No.3,<\/p>\n
reference was made to an FIR lodged by her and that there was no<\/p>\n
agreement by defendant No.3 with the plaintiffs nor defendants have<\/p>\n
received any amount of consideration from the plaintiffs.
\n R.S.A.No.1678 of 2007                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
          In replication, the stand of the defendants was denied and it<\/p>\n
was asserted to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
          “…. All the three defendants agreed to sell the disputed land to<\/p>\n
          plaintiff in the village Sangwari on 23.4.1996 for a sum of<\/p>\n
          RS.2,70,000\/- (Rs.Two lacs seventy thousand only).           It is<\/p>\n
          incorrect that the defendants agreed to sell the land in<\/p>\n
          question @ Rs.2,70,000\/- per acre. It is incorrect that the<\/p>\n
          answering defendants are illiterate. It is incorrect that they<\/p>\n
          can sign only. Defendant No.2 came alongwith the witnesses<\/p>\n
          and plaintiff in Tehsil at Rewari for execution of the agreement<\/p>\n
          which was got typed in Tehsil at Rewari in presence of Sh.<\/p>\n
          Hanuman and witnesses and the plaintiff. Defendant No.2<\/p>\n
          signed the agreement to sell at the bottam and on the next<\/p>\n
          page while witness Chiranji & Jas Ram signed the agreement<\/p>\n
          on the next page No.2 and in such situation the agreement was<\/p>\n
          given to Hanuman for keeping it as no amount was given at<\/p>\n
          that time. Lila Ram did not sign the agreement at that time as<\/p>\n
          he was of the view that he would not sign the agreement until<\/p>\n
          and unless the earnest money is paid to the defendants in his<\/p>\n
          presence. After that all the witnesses, plaintiff & defendant<\/p>\n
          No.2 came to Village Sangwari and plaintiff paid the earnest<\/p>\n
          amount of Rs.One lac in presence of all the three witnesses.<\/p>\n
          The agreement was again read over and explained to<\/p>\n
          defendant Nos.1 & 2 and defendant No.2 got the thumb<\/p>\n
          impression of his mother from his house. Rama Nand also
\n R.S.A.No.1678 of 2007                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
           signed the agreement in presence of the witnesses and<\/p>\n
           Hanuman and after than the earnest money was paid to<\/p>\n
           defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendant No.3 being an old lady<\/p>\n
           and mother of defendant Nos.1 and 2 had stated at the time of<\/p>\n
           agreement to pay the earnest money to defendant No.1 & 2<\/p>\n
           regarding her share as she is not to retain any money and they<\/p>\n
           have also pay a loan amount of the bank. Hanuman again<\/p>\n
           signed the first page of the agreement regarding receiving of<\/p>\n
           the earnest money of Rs.One lac in village Sangwari…..”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The parties went to trial with the said pleadings when an issue<\/p>\n
was framed whether the defendants had entered into an agreement with<\/p>\n
plaintiff for sale of their agricultural land.\n<\/p>\n
           In order to prove the execution of the agreement and the<\/p>\n
payment of earnest money, the plaintiff examined Kailash Chand (PW-1),<\/p>\n
the scribe of the agreement, Jas Ram (PW-6) and Chiranji (PW-7), the<\/p>\n
attesting witnesses beside examining plaintiff as PW-4. The witnesses<\/p>\n
have deposed that defendants Rama Nand, Hanuman and Dariai had<\/p>\n
entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 14 Kanals 12 Marlas for<\/p>\n
a sale consideration of Rs.2,70,000\/- orally in the village and thereafter<\/p>\n
the said Dariai and Rama Nand sent the said Hanuman to tehsil at Rewari<\/p>\n
for getting scribed and executed the said agreement on 23.4.1996. The<\/p>\n
agreement (Ex.P-1) was scribed at the direction of Hanuman. The same<\/p>\n
was read over and contents explained. Hanuman put his signatures on the<\/p>\n
said agreement. Since the vendors Rama Nand and Dariai were not<\/p>\n
present, the agreement was kept by Hanuman and they all went to village.
\n R.S.A.No.1678 of 2007                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
A sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- has been received by vendors in their presences<\/p>\n
and in the presence of Leela Ram and an endorsement to this effect was<\/p>\n
written by Jas Ram (PW-6) in his own hand-writing to the effect that the<\/p>\n
earnest money had been received by Hanuman. Thereafter, the parties<\/p>\n
and the witnesses put their signatures on the said agreement after<\/p>\n
admitting the contents of the agreement as correct.<\/p>\n
          On the other hand, Hanuman and Rama Nand have been<\/p>\n
examined as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively.          The learned trial Court<\/p>\n
decreed the suit holding that the agreement to sell was executed by the<\/p>\n
defendants by their free will and consent without any forgery, but that<\/p>\n
they had received earnest money of Rs.1,00,000\/- from the plaintiff in the<\/p>\n
presence of witnesses in their house at village Sanghwari. After returning<\/p>\n
such findings the suit was decreed. The learned trial Court has taken into<\/p>\n
consideration that photocopy of the agreement Mark ‘X’ has been<\/p>\n
produced by defendant Nos.1 and 2 alongwith their written-statement.<\/p>\n
Said photocopy shows signatures of defendant No.2. Such photocopy is<\/p>\n
not signed by Rama Nand on 1st and 2nd page or by witness Lila Ram.<\/p>\n
Even, the endorsement that a sum of Rs.1 lac has been received in cash<\/p>\n
and signed by Hanuman does not appear on the said document. The<\/p>\n
endorsement of payment of Rs.1 lac is attested by Jas Ram and Lila Ram.<\/p>\n
Even the said attestation does not appear on the photocopy of the<\/p>\n
document.    Thus, the Court found that from the photocopy of the<\/p>\n
agreement Mark ‘X’ produced by defendant No.2 and original agreement<\/p>\n
Ex.P-1 produced by the plaintiffs, in fact support the stand of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs that agreement Ex.P-1 was executed by the defendants in the
\n R.S.A.No.1678 of 2007                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
manner propounded by the plaintiffs and the stand of the defendants is<\/p>\n
incorrect.\n<\/p>\n
             The learned first Appellate Court reappreciated the evidence<\/p>\n
and found that DW-1 Hanuman has admitted during cross-examination<\/p>\n
that he had signed the said agreement at two places on the first page and<\/p>\n
at one place on the page 2. He admitted his signatures on endorsement<\/p>\n
Ex.PW-6\/B and that he has received Rs.1,00,000\/-. This endorsement is<\/p>\n
scribed by Jas Ram and signed by attesting witness Leela Ram. The<\/p>\n
signatures of Rama Nand (DW-2) were got compared from Finger Print<\/p>\n
Expert Som Nath Aggarwal (PW-5).             On this basis of his report<\/p>\n
Ex.PW5\/5, it was found that disputed signatures on the agreement tallied<\/p>\n
with his sample signatures.\n<\/p>\n
             The learned first Appellate Court did not find any substance in<\/p>\n
the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that<\/p>\n
according to plaint, the agreement was executed on the same day when<\/p>\n
the earnest money was paid, but the evidence is contradictory to the effect<\/p>\n
that the payment was made next day. It was found that plaintiff has<\/p>\n
explained the circumstances leading to the execution of agreement in<\/p>\n
replication. Therefore, it cannot be said that the stand of the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
contradictory.\n<\/p>\n
             The argument that defendant No.3 was never agreed for<\/p>\n
agreement to sell and the said agreement does not bear her thumb<\/p>\n
impressions, therefore, the said agreement cannot be enforced against her<\/p>\n
share did not find favour.       Learned first Appellate Court found that<\/p>\n
defendant No.3 has since died and her share has been inherited by
\n R.S.A.No.1678 of 2007                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant Nos.1 and 2. therefore, even though defendant No.3 has not<\/p>\n
thumb marked the agreement, but in view of subsequent events defendant<\/p>\n
Nos.1 and 2 having inherited the share of their mother are bound by the<\/p>\n
agreement. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of specific<\/p>\n
performance as well. In fact, a finding has been returned that Hanuman<\/p>\n
has put his thumb impressions as that of his mother. In view of the said<\/p>\n
fact, the appeal was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
          Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants has<\/p>\n
vehemently argued that the evidence of the plaintiff is contradictory to<\/p>\n
the pleadings raised by the plaintiff and, therefore, the decree for specific<\/p>\n
performance could not have been granted. Reliance is placed upon Jai<\/p>\n
Narain Parasrampuria (Dead) and Others Vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf and<\/p>\n
Others (2006) 7 SCC 756, to contend that since the plaintiff had not<\/p>\n
approached the Court with clean hands, therefore, the decree for specific<\/p>\n
performance could not have been granted.          Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants has referred to para 5 of the grounds of appeal pointing out the<\/p>\n
suspicious circumstances in respect of payment of earnest money of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,000\/-. Learned counsel has further argued that endorsement of<\/p>\n
receipt of Rs.1,00,000\/- is also surrounded by suspicious circumstance as<\/p>\n
explained in para 7 of grounds of appeal. It is also argued that the<\/p>\n
finding that Hanuman has forged thumb impressions of his mother is also<\/p>\n
based upon misreading of evidence.\n<\/p>\n
          Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and<\/p>\n
going through the record of the trial Court, I do not find any merit in the<\/p>\n
arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Though the
\n R.S.A.No.1678 of 2007                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiffs have not pleaded in the plaint, the manner of execution of the<\/p>\n
agreement as pleaded in the replication. But the circumstances in detail<\/p>\n
have been explained in replication and the fact that it was Hanuman, who<\/p>\n
signed the agreement at the time when the agreement was being scribed<\/p>\n
in the presence of witnesses Jas Ram and Chiranji Lal. Defendant No.2<\/p>\n
was sent by other defendants to get the agreement scribed.            It was<\/p>\n
subsequently, on payment of Rs.1 lac, which is acknowledged by<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 under his signatures and attested by Jas Ram and Lila<\/p>\n
Ram, the amount of Rs.1 lac was paid to the defendants at the time when<\/p>\n
the agreement was signed by defendant No.1 as well. Though defendant<\/p>\n
No.1 has denied his signatures on the aforesaid agreement, but PW-5<\/p>\n
Som Nath Aggarwal, Finger Print Expert, has proved that such document<\/p>\n
bears the signatures of defendant No.1 alone. Hanuman appearing as<\/p>\n
DW-1, has admitted the presence of Chiranji Lal, Lila Ram and Jas Ram<\/p>\n
at the time of writing of the agreement. It is the said persons, who have<\/p>\n
signed the agreement. Chiranji Lal and Jas Ram have signed when the<\/p>\n
document was written, whereas Lila Ram has signed at the time of<\/p>\n
payment at the house of the defendants. The defendants has not produced<\/p>\n
any other evidence except self serving statement of defendant Nos.1 and<\/p>\n
2. No enmity is attributed to Chiranji Lal and Jas Ram, as to why the said<\/p>\n
persons, should depose against the defendants. Thus, it cannot be said<\/p>\n
that there is either contradiction in the pleadings, in the plaint and the<\/p>\n
replication or the evidence led is untrustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
          The judgment in Jai Narain’s case (supra) is not applicable to<\/p>\n
the facts of the present case. In the present case, it is the defendants, who
\n R.S.A.No.1678 of 2007                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
have been found not to be truthful witnesses. Defendant No.1 has denied<\/p>\n
his signatures in the written-statement, but the same stands proved. The<\/p>\n
defendants denied the execution of the agreement and the total sale<\/p>\n
considration. The said stand is also not believed by the Courts below.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is not the plaintiffs, who have not come with clean hands,<\/p>\n
but it is the defendants, who have taken a false plea. In Jai Narain’s case,<\/p>\n
it was found that both the parties are guilty of serious misconduct and<\/p>\n
abused the process of Court. Frivolous proceedings were found to be<\/p>\n
initiated by the parties against each other. In view of the said fact, the<\/p>\n
decree for specific performance was declined. Such is not the fact in the<\/p>\n
present case.\n<\/p>\n
            Therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be<\/p>\n
said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. Though the<\/p>\n
arguments made by learned counsel for the appellants were in the realm<\/p>\n
of reappreciation of evidence, but even on reappreciation of evidence, I<\/p>\n
do not find that any other view than what is taken by the Courts below, is<\/p>\n
possible.\n<\/p>\n
            In view thereof, I do not find that any substantial question of<\/p>\n
law arises for consideration of this Court on the basis of findings<\/p>\n
recorded by the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n
            Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
29.7.2009                                          (HEMANT GUPTA)\nVimal                                                 JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Rama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009 R.S.A.No.1678 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1678 of 2007 Date of Decision : 29.7.2009 Rama Nand and Another …Appellants Versus Phool Singh and Others …Respondents CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-13T08:04:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-13T08:04:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2355,\"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\\\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Rama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-13T08:04:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-13T08:04:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-13T08:04:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009"},"wordCount":2355,"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\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009","name":"Rama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-13T08:04:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rama-nand-and-another-vs-phool-singh-and-others-on-29-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rama Nand And Another vs Phool Singh And Others on 29 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6941","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=6941"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6941\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}