{"id":80167,"date":"2008-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-09-04T19:38:18","modified_gmt":"2017-09-04T14:08:18","slug":"dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Dev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Dev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Civil Revision No. 1096 of 2007                                       1\n\n\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.\n\n\n\n                    Civil Revision No. 1096 of 2007\n                    Date of Decision: 10.11.2008\n\n\n\nDev Samaj Society (Registered)\n                                                             ...Petitioner\n                                 Versus\nLalita Rani\n                                                          ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.\n\n\nPresent: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate\n         for the petitioner.\n\n          Mr. U.K.Agnihotri, Advocate\n          for the respondent.\n\n\nKanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.\n<\/pre>\n
          Dev Samaj Society through Sudarshan Kumar, Principal, Dev<\/p>\n
Samaj Senior Model School, Ambala City, has preferred the present<\/p>\n
revision petition assailing the orders of two Courts below i.e. learned<\/p>\n
Rent Controller, Ambala and learned Appellate Authority, Ambala, as<\/p>\n
eviction petition instituted on the ground of non-payment of rent and<\/p>\n
material impairment of value and utility of the building was not accepted.<\/p>\n
Having remained unsuccessful in two Courts below, in the present<\/p>\n
revision petition, findings of the two Courts below have been challenged<\/p>\n
on law and facts.\n<\/p>\n
 Civil Revision No. 1096 of 2007                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
          Dev Samaj Society, landlord-petitioner, is having various<\/p>\n
shops on Duni Chand Road near Congress Bhawan, Ambala City. One<\/p>\n
of the shops was rented out to the respondent at the rate of Rs.190\/- per<\/p>\n
month excluding electricity and water charges. In the eviction petition, it<\/p>\n
was averred that the rent of the shop was not paid the rent of the shop in<\/p>\n
question since 1.12.2000 to 30.9.2001, total amounting to Rs.1,900\/-.<\/p>\n
Second ground pleaded was that the tenant has broken the floor of the<\/p>\n
shop in question and thereby level of the floor was raised by<\/p>\n
constructing the new floor without the written consent of the petitioner-<\/p>\n
society. It was pleaded that the tenant has also raised the level of roof<\/p>\n
and ceiling of the shop in question after breaking the ceiling and roof<\/p>\n
and thereby damaged the walls of the shop in question, therefore, the<\/p>\n
value and utility of the shop stood diminished.\n<\/p>\n
          Written statement was filed by the tenant. Preliminary<\/p>\n
objection regarding the maintainability of the petition was raised.<\/p>\n
Relationship of landlord-tenant was admitted. It was stated that the rent<\/p>\n
was regularly paid. On refusal of the petitioner-landlord, arrears of rent<\/p>\n
were tendered in the Court. It was stated that no structural changes<\/p>\n
were made in the shop in the manner suggested by the landlord. It was<\/p>\n
pleaded that there were more than dozen shops rented out and all the<\/p>\n
shops were having a roof which was an old structure in existence. In<\/p>\n
May 2000, Sudarshan Kumar on behalf of the Society, approached the<\/p>\n
tenants individually and collectively expressing desire that a Computer<\/p>\n
Institution is to be run, therefore, on removal of the belongings of the<\/p>\n
shopkeepers on 22.5.2000, old structure of the roof was removed.<\/p>\n
Petitioner-Society constructed the roof of the shop equal to the level of
\n Civil Revision No. 1096 of 2007                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
the shops under the tenancy of S.B.Traders and Gobind Ram. Landlord<\/p>\n
had raised the level of the roof and the entire work was completed by<\/p>\n
the petitioner-society. The landlord had also agreed to the demand of<\/p>\n
the tenant that the level of the shops be raised because rainy water<\/p>\n
enters into the shops.\n<\/p>\n
          The following issues were drawn by learned Rent Controller<\/p>\n
          1.        Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f.<\/p>\n
                    1.12.2000 to 30.9.2001, if so its effect? OPP<\/p>\n
          2.        Whether the respondent has materially altered the<\/p>\n
                    property in question causing impairment in its value<\/p>\n
                    and utility, if so its effect? OPP<\/p>\n
          3.        Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR<\/p>\n
          4.        Relief.\n<\/p>\n
          Sudarshan Kumar appeared on behalf of the petitioner-<\/p>\n
landlord as PW.1 and closed the evidence. Respondent-tenant<\/p>\n
examined Ashok Kumar as RW.1, his brother-in-law, Sanjiv Goel, who<\/p>\n
was having shop opposite, appeared as RW.2 and Surender Kumar<\/p>\n
Verma, Building Inspector of Municipal Corporation, Ambala, has<\/p>\n
appeared as RW.3.\n<\/p>\n
          Meaningful discussion of the two Courts below revolved<\/p>\n
around the fact whether removal of the old roof and construction of the<\/p>\n
new roof was at the instance of the petitioner or was done by the tenant.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, there was no written consent. It was pleaded by the tenant<\/p>\n
that construction of new roof was made by the landlord himself. The two<\/p>\n
Courts below, to find out the answer as to which oral version is correct,<\/p>\n
relied upon the circumstances which emerge from the oral testimony of
\n Civil Revision No. 1096 of 2007                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
the witnesses. Learned Rent Controller held that Sudarshan Kumar,<\/p>\n
through whom the petition has been filed, has not been able to disclose<\/p>\n
as to when the alleged changes were made. He also denied having<\/p>\n
received the notice from the Municipal Committee regarding            non-<\/p>\n
sanction of the building plan, and the same was done at his instance by<\/p>\n
the Municipal Committee.       Learned Rent Controller came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that Sudarshan Kumar has not been able to state as to when<\/p>\n
the construction was raised by the tenant. It also considered the fact<\/p>\n
that he had not visited the said premises. It further inferred that failure<\/p>\n
on the part of landlord to establish as to from which date alleged<\/p>\n
alteration was made     is sufficient to conclude that the landlord was<\/p>\n
aware of the alterations made. Learned Appellate Authority duly noticed<\/p>\n
the fact that it has been admitted by the landlord that the level of floor<\/p>\n
and roof of dozen of shops was raised in May 2000. The business<\/p>\n
activities of the said shops remained closed for about two months. The<\/p>\n
Municipal Council had also issued notice to the landlord-appellant.<\/p>\n
Therefore, learned lower Appellate Authority concluded as under:-<\/p>\n
                   “…In the present case, the appellant is a Trust and<\/p>\n
                   along with the demised shop, similar alterations were<\/p>\n
                   made in about a dozen of tenanted shops belonging<\/p>\n
                   to the appellant. On appraisal of the entire evidence,<\/p>\n
                   it is not proved that the alterations were carried out<\/p>\n
                   without the consent of the landlord. This is not a case<\/p>\n
                   where the tenant may have alleged that he himself<\/p>\n
                   carried out the alterations and rather, it is a case<\/p>\n
                   where the land-lord got the alterations carried out in
\n Civil Revision No. 1096 of 2007                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
                   many shops at the same time. The learned Rent<\/p>\n
                   Controller appreciated the entire evidence adduced in<\/p>\n
                   the case and recorded firm finding of fact holding that<\/p>\n
                   it was the landlord\/appellant who carried out the<\/p>\n
                   alterations in the demised shop and several other<\/p>\n
                   shops. On re-appraisal of the entire evidence, I find<\/p>\n
                   no ground or justification to take a different view”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          I have heard Mr. Puneet Bali, learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner and Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondent.<\/p>\n
Mr. Bali relied upon Gurdial Singh and Others v. Raj Kumar Aneja<\/p>\n
and Others<\/a> 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 1 (Supreme Court) to say<\/p>\n
where several cabins were constructed in the hall, the value and utility<\/p>\n
of the building was considered to have been impaired. Therefore, it has<\/p>\n
been stated that by raising the level of roof and the floor, tenant has<\/p>\n
impaired the value of the property.\n<\/p>\n
          Reliance has been also placed by Mr. Bali on Mrs. Gian Kaur<\/p>\n
v. Mrs. Krishna Anand 2006(2) Rent Control Reporter 610 and it has<\/p>\n
been urged that impairing of the value and utility of the demises<\/p>\n
premises is to be seen from the view point of the landlord and not the<\/p>\n
tenant.\n<\/p>\n
          A further reliance has been placed on Inderpal v. Sat Narain<\/p>\n
2004(2) Rent Control Reporter 441 and it has been urged that where<\/p>\n
after the disputed alterations rent was raised and accepted by the<\/p>\n
landlord, then also consent of the landlord cannot be presumed.<\/p>\n
          Further reliance has been placed upon Baij Nath v. Shail<\/p>\n
Kumari 2003(1) Rent Control Reporter 197; Vijay Kumar Bansal v.
\n Civil Revision No. 1096 of 2007                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
Bishan Sarup 2003(1) Rent Control Reporter 627 and Smt. Nirmala<\/p>\n
v. Ishwar Chander 1983(2) Rent Control Reporter 208 and it has<\/p>\n
been submitted that the present revision petition ought to be accepted<\/p>\n
and eviction of the tenants be ordered.\n<\/p>\n
          Mr. U.K.Agnihotri appearing for the respondent-tenant has<\/p>\n
controverted the submissions by saying that the findings of the two<\/p>\n
Courts below being concurrent are based upon appreciation of evidence<\/p>\n
and revisional Court cannot disturb the same until it is held that the<\/p>\n
finding is perverse. It is further submitted that the view formulated by the<\/p>\n
two Courts below is one of the view which is possible and the same<\/p>\n
cannot be altered.\n<\/p>\n
          The structure was changed, earlier roof was removed and<\/p>\n
new ceiling over more than dozen of shops was laid is an admitted fact.<\/p>\n
Whether this was done by the landlord as pleaded by the tenant or<\/p>\n
tenant himself did, is the question which is dependent upon appreciation<\/p>\n
of the evidence of the case. It is a fact that Municipal Council had<\/p>\n
issued a notice for non-sanctioning of the building plan and later<\/p>\n
changes made in the building have been compounded.              Sudarshan<\/p>\n
Kumar on material facts has not been able to disclose as to when the<\/p>\n
alleged structural changes were made. He has denied having received<\/p>\n
any notice from the Municipal Council regarding the non-sanctioning of<\/p>\n
building plan of the shops in question.          A solitary statement of<\/p>\n
Sudarshan Kumar and his oral bald assertions are not sufficient to<\/p>\n
advance his case. The findings of fact have been recorded by the two<\/p>\n
Courts below. Whether the alterations made, impaired, utility and value<\/p>\n
of the property is a mixed question of facts and law.
\n Civil Revision No. 1096 of 2007                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
          From the kind of evidence led, the concurrent findings of two<\/p>\n
Courts below warrant no interference and hence the present revision<\/p>\n
petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
\n                                                               Judge
\nNovember 10, 2008
\n“DK”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Dev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008 Civil Revision No. 1096 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 1096 of 2007 Date of Decision: 10.11.2008 Dev Samaj Society (Registered) …Petitioner Versus Lalita Rani … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE […]<\/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-80167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-04T14:08:18+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\\\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-04T14:08:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1519,\"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\\\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Dev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-04T14:08:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-04T14:08:18+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\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-04T14:08:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008"},"wordCount":1519,"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\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008","name":"Dev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-04T14:08:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dev-samaj-society-registered-vs-lalita-rani-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dev Samaj Society (Registered) vs Lalita Rani on 10 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80167","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=80167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80167\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}