{"id":80515,"date":"2008-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-28T06:07:18","modified_gmt":"2018-08-28T00:37:18","slug":"rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The … on 8 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Rsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The … on 8 July, 2008<\/div>\n
RSA NOS.1284 & 1285 OF 2008 (O&M)                           :1:\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n         AT CHANDIGARH.\n\n\n\n                   DATE OF DECISION:           8.7.2008\n\n\n1.RSA No.1284 of 2008 (O&M)\n(Ranjit Singh & Others vs. Sukhraj Kaur and<\/a> another)\n\n\n2.RSA No.1285 of 2008 (O&M)\n(Ranjit Singh & Others vs. Sukhraj Kaur and<\/a> another)\n\n\n\n\n                       CORAM\n\n      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI\n\n\nPRESENT: Mr.Karamvir Singh, Advocate for appellant\n\nPermod Kohli, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
CM No.3784-C\/2008 in
\nRSA No.1284 of 2008<\/p>\n
      This is an application for condonation of delay in re-filing<\/p>\n
the appeal. For the reasons recorded therein, delay in re-filing is<\/p>\n
condoned. CM disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
CM No.3795-C\/2008 in
\nRSA No.1284\/2008<\/p>\n
      This is an application for impleadment of the L.Rs of Ranjit<\/p>\n
Singh, plaintiff\/appellant no.1 who died after the filing of this<\/p>\n
appeal. The application is supported with affidavit. For the reasons<\/p>\n
recorded therein, L.Rs of Ranjit Singh-plaintiff mentioned in para 1<\/p>\n
of this application are taken on record subject to all just exceptions<\/p>\n
and they are permitted to file this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
 RSA NOS.1284 & 1285 OF 2008 (O&M)                            :2:\n\nCM No.3787-C\/2008 in\nRSA No.1285 of 2008\n\n<\/pre>\n
      This is an application for condonation of delay in re-filing<\/p>\n
the appeal. For the reasons recorded therein, delay in re-filing is<\/p>\n
condoned. CM disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
CM No.3798-C\/2008 in
\nRSA No.1285\/2008<\/p>\n
      This is an application for impleadment of the L.Rs of Ranjit<\/p>\n
Singh, plaintiff\/appellant no.1 who died after the filing of this<\/p>\n
appeal. The application is supported with affidavit. For the reasons<\/p>\n
recorded therein, L.Rs of Ranjit Singh-plaintiff mentioned in para 1<\/p>\n
of this application are taken on record subject to all just exceptions<\/p>\n
and they are permitted to file this appeal.<\/p>\n
RSA Nos.1284 & 1285 of 2008<\/p>\n
      This order will dispose of RSA Nos.1284 and 1285 of 2008<\/p>\n
as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these<\/p>\n
appeals.\n<\/p>\n
      Appellants are plaintiffs in the suit. Plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and<\/p>\n
defendant no.2 are real brothers whereas plaintiffs no.3 and 4 are<\/p>\n
the sisters, defendant no.3 is mother. Defendant no.1 is the wife of<\/p>\n
defendant no.2. Plaintiffs filed the suit challenging the sale deed<\/p>\n
executed by defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1 on the<\/p>\n
ground that the same has been obtained as a result of fraud,<\/p>\n
misrepresentation and coercion and is without consideration. They<\/p>\n
also claimed share in the property on the basis of natural<\/p>\n
succession. The defendants resisted the suit denying the<\/p>\n
allegations. They also pleaded that the suit is premature.     During
\n RSA NOS.1284 & 1285 OF 2008 (O&M)                          :3:\n<\/p>\n
the pendency of the suit, defendant no.3 died and the defendants<\/p>\n
no.1 and 2 set up a will executed by defendant no.3 in favour of<\/p>\n
defendant no.2. It has been pleaded that defendant no.3 was<\/p>\n
residing with defendants no.1 and 2 and in consideration of the<\/p>\n
services rendered by defendants no.1 and 2, defendant no.3 has<\/p>\n
executed the will in favour of defendant no.2, her son. On the basis<\/p>\n
of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-<\/p>\n
                   1.Whether the registered sale deed dated<\/p>\n
                   27.11.1986 alleged to have been executed by<\/p>\n
                   defendant no.3 in favour of defendant no.1 in<\/p>\n
                   respect of the suit property is illegal, null and<\/p>\n
                   void and the same does not confer any title in<\/p>\n
                   favour of the defendant no.1, if so its effect?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   OPP<\/p>\n
                   2) If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff<\/p>\n
                   is entitled to declaration, as prayed for? OPP<\/p>\n
                   3)Whether the suit is properly valued for the<\/p>\n
                   purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP<\/p>\n
                   4)Whether Smt. Ram Kaur executed valid and<\/p>\n
                   registered Will in favour of defendant no.2 on<\/p>\n
                   18.2.1986, if so, its effect? OPD<\/p>\n
                   5.Whether defendant no.1 purchased the suit<\/p>\n
                   land measuring 39 kanals 15 marlas from one<\/p>\n
                   Ram Kaur through registered Sale deed dated<\/p>\n
                   27.11.1996 for consideration? OPD<\/p>\n
                   6.Whether defendants nos.1 and 2 are entitled
\n RSA NOS.1284 & 1285 OF 2008 (O&M)                           :4:\n<\/p>\n
                   for counter claim to the effect that defendant<\/p>\n
                   no.2 Surjit Singh is owner in possession<\/p>\n
                   regarding 1\/6th share out of total 490 kanals 4<\/p>\n
                   marlas fully detailed in the counter claim filed<\/p>\n
                   by defendants nos.1 and 2? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   7.Whether the suit is barred by the principle of<\/p>\n
                   resjudicata? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   8) Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Parties led their respective evidence. During the course of<\/p>\n
hearing, defendants no.1 and 2 gave up their claim on the basis of<\/p>\n
the sale deed and claimed the property through the will dated<\/p>\n
18.2.1986. Defendants also filed a counter claim seeking a decree<\/p>\n
for share in the landed property claiming 1\/6th share out of the land<\/p>\n
measuring 940 kanals and 4 marlas specified in the counter claim<\/p>\n
preferred by defendant no.2. The trial court took up issue no.4 for<\/p>\n
consideration. It has been recorded that PW2-Mohar Singh, scribe<\/p>\n
of the will in his testimony proved the will and its execution by<\/p>\n
defendant no.3. The will has also been entered in the register of<\/p>\n
the scribe which also bears the signature of deceased Ram Kaur,<\/p>\n
defendant no.3 as also the marginal witnesses. Scribe specifically<\/p>\n
stated that the will was prepared at the instance of Ram Kaur and it<\/p>\n
was read over and explained to her and thereafter she        put her<\/p>\n
thumb impression on the will as also in the register. Marginal<\/p>\n
witnesses also signed the will as also the register of the scribe. To<\/p>\n
the same effect are the statements of DW2 Gurcharan Singh and<\/p>\n
DW4 Thakur Singh, the marginal witnesses to the will. Defendants
\n RSA NOS.1284 & 1285 OF 2008 (O&M)                          :5:\n<\/p>\n
no.1 and 2 also led evidence to prove that defendant no.3 was<\/p>\n
living with them and they were looking after her needs and<\/p>\n
necessity of life. On the basis of the evidence recorded, the trial<\/p>\n
court came to the categorical findings that the defendants have<\/p>\n
successfully proved the execution of the will by deceased Ram<\/p>\n
Kaur and there is no suspicious circumstance. While arriving at this<\/p>\n
conclusion, it has also    been recorded that the deceased has<\/p>\n
specifically mentioned in the will that her daughters are married<\/p>\n
and she is living with the defendants no.1 and 2 and thus there<\/p>\n
were sufficient circumstances for excluding the plaintiffs from the<\/p>\n
inheritance of the property. The suit of the plaintiff\/appellants<\/p>\n
herein came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
24.10.2005 and the counter claims of defendant no.2 have been<\/p>\n
decreed by the trial court. The plaintiffs preferred two appeals<\/p>\n
being CA Nos.128 and 127 of 2005 re-numbered as            RT.FTC<\/p>\n
No.80\/2006 and 81\/2005 in the Court of Additional District Judge<\/p>\n
(Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Muktsar. The lower appellate court<\/p>\n
also scanned the evidence and found that the will being registered<\/p>\n
and duly proved by the scribe and the witness is a valid document.<\/p>\n
Resultantly, the appeals were dismissed vide judgment and decree<\/p>\n
dated 26.10.2006 by affirming the findings of the trial court, both<\/p>\n
on the question of validity of will and the counter claim. The<\/p>\n
present appeals have been preferred against the judgments and<\/p>\n
decrees of the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.Singla, learned counsel for the appellants\/plaintiffs has<\/p>\n
contended that the defendants have failed to establish the due
\n RSA NOS.1284 & 1285 OF 2008 (O&M)                           :6:\n<\/p>\n
execution of the will as required under Section 63 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Succession Act. He has relied upon the judgments in the cases of<\/p>\n
Dhaman v. Jiya Lall and others<\/a>, AIR 2005 Punjab and<\/p>\n
Haryana 191,       Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Mandeo<\/p>\n
Kadam,<\/a> 2003 AIR (SC) 761, Moonga Devi and others v. Radha<\/p>\n
Ballabh, AIR<\/a> 1972 Supreme Court 1471 and Joginder Singh<\/p>\n
alias Rajinder Singh v. Dharuv Singh, (P<\/a>&H), 2003 (3) PLR<\/p>\n
545 to argue that the marginal witnesses must state that the testator<\/p>\n
signed the will in their presence, but in the present case, in the<\/p>\n
statements of the marginal witnesses, there is no such averment.<\/p>\n
        I have carefully considered this aspect and also gone<\/p>\n
through the statement of the marginal witnesses reproduced in the<\/p>\n
memo of appeal. The marginal witnesses have specifically stated<\/p>\n
that the testators signed in their presence. To the same effect is the<\/p>\n
statement of the scribe. In my opinion, the argument is based upon<\/p>\n
total misinterpretation of the statements of the witnesses. The<\/p>\n
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n
have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present<\/p>\n
case. No substantial question of law arises. I find no merit in both<\/p>\n
the appeals which are accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                             (PERMOD KOHLI)
\n                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
8.7..2008
\n MFK
\n RSA NOS.1284 & 1285 OF 2008 (O&M)   :7:\n<\/p>\n
 RSA NOS.1284 & 1285 OF 2008 (O&M)   :8:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Rsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The … on 8 July, 2008 RSA NOS.1284 & 1285 OF 2008 (O&M) :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 8.7.2008 1.RSA No.1284 of 2008 (O&M) (Ranjit Singh & Others vs. Sukhraj Kaur and another) […]<\/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-80515","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The ... on 8 July, 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\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The ... on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-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=\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-28T00:37:18+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The … on 8 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-28T00:37:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1315,\"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\\\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Rsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The ... on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-28T00:37:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The … on 8 July, 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":"Rsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The ... on 8 July, 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\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The ... on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-28T00:37:18+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The … on 8 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-28T00:37:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008"},"wordCount":1315,"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\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008","name":"Rsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The ... on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-28T00:37:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rsa-no-1284-of-2008-om-vs-appellants-are-plaintiffs-in-the-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rsa No.1284 Of 2008 (O&M) vs Appellants Are Plaintiffs In The … on 8 July, 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\/80515","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=80515"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80515\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80515"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}