{"id":86084,"date":"2009-10-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009"},"modified":"2018-07-13T13:30:45","modified_gmt":"2018-07-13T08:00:45","slug":"satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Satbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And … on 23 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Satbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And … on 23 October, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No. 3792 of 2009 (O&M)                                     1\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n                        R.S.A.No. 3792 of 2009 (O&M)\n\n                        Date of decision: 23.10.2009\n\n\nSatbir Singh\n\n                                                       ......Appellant\n\n                        Versus\n\n\n\nJugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh and another\n\n                                                    .......Respondents\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\nPresent:   Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate,\n           for the appellant.\n\n                 ****\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
           Plaintiff Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh filed a suit for<\/p>\n
declaration, mandatory injunction and possession which was<\/p>\n
decreed by the Additiional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Gurgaon vide<\/p>\n
judgment and decree dated 24.5.2006. In appeal, filed by defendant<\/p>\n
No.3, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2007.<\/p>\n
Hence, the present appeal by the defendant No.3.<\/p>\n
           Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate<\/p>\n
Court in para Nos. 2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under:-<\/p>\n
           “2.       Briefly stated the facts of the present case are
\n R.S.A.No. 3792 of 2009 (O&M)                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
          that plaintiff is owner of the strip of land of size 13 x 27′<\/p>\n
          measuring approximately 40 square yards shown in red<\/p>\n
          colour and marked by letters ABCD in the site plan which<\/p>\n
          is forming part and parcel of khasra No. 2923, situated<\/p>\n
          within the residential colony of Laxman Vihar Phase-II,<\/p>\n
          Gurgaon (hereinafter called as suit property) and which is<\/p>\n
          bounded as under:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              East:   Vacant land of the plaintiff shown in yellow<\/p>\n
                      colour, forming part of Khasra No. 2923\/3.<\/p>\n
              West: Vacant land of the plaintiff shown in yellow<\/p>\n
                      colour and thereafter houses of Ravinder and<\/p>\n
                      Mahesh who illegally encroached upon the<\/p>\n
                      land of the plaintiff the size 13 x 25′.<\/p>\n
              North: Land of Khasra No. 2923\/2 owned by the<\/p>\n
                      defendant No.3, who sold the same to the<\/p>\n
                      defendants No. 1 and 2 through the sale deed<\/p>\n
                      in question.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              South: Land of the plaintiff forming part of Khasra<\/p>\n
                      No. 2923\/3 being used as rasta of 18′ wide<\/p>\n
                      and thereafter other plots of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
          It was averred that plaintiff became owner of suit property<\/p>\n
          on the basis of family settlement, re-affirmed in civil suit<\/p>\n
          No. 126\/95 decided on 4.12.1995 and mutation No.<\/p>\n
          18408 sanctioned and 20.3.1996; that family settlement
\n R.S.A.No. 3792 of 2009 (O&M)                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
          was duly acted upon by the parties concerned; that<\/p>\n
          defendant No.3, brother of plaintiff has now been became<\/p>\n
          dishonest       and out of mala fide, he sold the plot<\/p>\n
          measuring 180 sq. yards including suit property to<\/p>\n
          defendants no.1 and 2 through registered sale deed<\/p>\n
          dated 7.2.97 for sale consideration of Rs. 1,80,000\/-. It<\/p>\n
          was averred that the sale deed dated 7.2.97 is illegal, null<\/p>\n
          and void and not binding upon the rights of plaintiff, but<\/p>\n
          defendants no. 1 and 2 have raised the construction of<\/p>\n
          boundary wall during pendency of previous suit titled as<\/p>\n
          Jugbir Singh vs. Satbir Singh<\/a> which is still pending and<\/p>\n
          plaintiff is entitled to get possession of suit land free from<\/p>\n
          all kinds of construction. It was averred that in previous<\/p>\n
          suit   titled   Jugbir   Singh   vs.   Satbir   Singh,       Local<\/p>\n
          Commissioner<\/a> submitted his report on 22.5.1999 about<\/p>\n
          raising of construction on suit land by defendants No. 1<\/p>\n
          and 2 during pendency of that suit and plaintiff also got<\/p>\n
          demarcated his share of land through Gian Chand, the<\/p>\n
          then Office Kanungo,Gurgaon ; that said Gian Chand<\/p>\n
          carried out demarcation and found that defendant NO.3<\/p>\n
          had illegally sold some pieces of land including suit<\/p>\n
          property belonging to plaintiff by selling away his own<\/p>\n
          land to defendant No.1. It was pleaded that on coming to<\/p>\n
          know     about illegally committed by defendant no.3,
\n R.S.A.No. 3792 of 2009 (O&M)                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
          plaintiff made request to defendants not to raise<\/p>\n
          construction, but of no use. Hence the present suit.<\/p>\n
          3.              On being noticed, defendants appeared.<\/p>\n
          Defendants    No.     1   and   2   filed   written   statement<\/p>\n
          controverting the claim of the plaintiff by taking certain<\/p>\n
          preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no cause<\/p>\n
          of action, suit being time barred, estopped etc. On<\/p>\n
          merits, almost all other averments of the plaintiff were<\/p>\n
          denied and it has been strenuously averred that<\/p>\n
          answering    defendants      are    bonafide   purchaser     for<\/p>\n
          consideration ; that after purchase the answering<\/p>\n
          defendants have raised a compound walls of the height<\/p>\n
          of 5.5 feet over the plot in question and there has been no<\/p>\n
          objection of any kind from any person including plaintiff.<\/p>\n
          It   was   asserted   that   before    purchase,      answering<\/p>\n
          defendants even had inquired from plaintiff himself and on<\/p>\n
          his assurance, answering defendants did purchase suit<\/p>\n
          property. It was emphasised that plaintiff and defendant<\/p>\n
          No.3 have colluded with each other to cause illegal loss<\/p>\n
          to the answering defendants. It was prayed that suit be<\/p>\n
          dismissed with costs. \\<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          4.              Defendant No. 3 also filed separate written<\/p>\n
          statement dispiting the claim of plaintiff. The following<\/p>\n
          preliminary objections were taken that suit is legally not
\n R.S.A.No. 3792 of 2009 (O&M)                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
            maintainable in the present form; that suit is barred under<\/p>\n
            Order 2 rule 2 CPC; that plaintiff is estopped from filing<\/p>\n
            the present suit by his own act and conduct: that suit is<\/p>\n
            barred under Order 23 CPC etc. on merits, ownership of<\/p>\n
            plaintiff over the suit property was denied by pleading the<\/p>\n
            answering defendants did not sell any land of plaintiff.<\/p>\n
            Rather, answering defendant sold the land out of his own<\/p>\n
            land to defendants no. 1 and 2. Request for dismissal of<\/p>\n
            suit was made.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were<\/p>\n
framed by the trial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
            “1.          Whether the plaintiff is owner of strip of land<\/p>\n
            of size 13′ x 27′ stated in para no. 1 of the plaint? Opp<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2.           Whether the said strip of land in suit is part<\/p>\n
            and parcel of Khasra No. 2923\/3 of Gurgaon village?<\/p>\n
            OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3.           Whether the sale deed bearing Vasika No.<\/p>\n
            15879 dated 7.2.97 executed by defendant no. 3 in favour<\/p>\n
            of defendants no. 1 and 2 qua the strip of land in suit is<\/p>\n
            illegal,   null and void and not        binding   upon the<\/p>\n
            plaintiff?OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            4.           Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession<\/p>\n
            of the strip of land in suit?OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            5.           Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD
\n R.S.A.No. 3792 of 2009 (O&M)                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           6.         Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to<\/p>\n
           file the suit?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           7.         Whether the suit is time barred? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           8.         Whether the plaitniff is estopped from filing the<\/p>\n
           present suit as alleged?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           9.         Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of<\/p>\n
           necessary parties as alleged?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           10.        Whether the defendants no. 1 and 2 are the<\/p>\n
           bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and notice<\/p>\n
           to the plaintiff?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           11.        Whether suit is collusive between the plaintiff<\/p>\n
           and defendantl no. 3 as alleged?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           12.        Whether the suit is not properly valued for the<\/p>\n
           purposes of court fees and jurisdiction as alleged?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           13.        Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 rule<\/p>\n
           2 CPC?OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           14.        Relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of<\/p>\n
the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and<\/p>\n
deserves dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
           In the present case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for<\/p>\n
declaration that he was absolute owner of the suit property. Learned<\/p>\n
Appellate Court, in para Nos. 14 to 17, in the impugned judgment<\/p>\n
held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 R.S.A.No. 3792 of 2009 (O&M)                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
          14.         Now the moot question in this case is as to<\/p>\n
          whether the appellant Satbir has no right to alienate the<\/p>\n
          land marked by letters ABCD as shown in red colour in<\/p>\n
          site plan Ex.P1. No doubt, on behalf of appellant, an<\/p>\n
          argument has been raised that there is ;difference in area<\/p>\n
          as per Annexure-C site plan Ex.PW6\/5 and mutation<\/p>\n
          Ex.PX\/9 and as per report Ex.PX\/3\/EX.PX\/4 taken along<\/p>\n
          with site plan Ex.PX\/5. However, for the reasons<\/p>\n
          mentioned herein, I am of the confirmed view that under<\/p>\n
          the facts and circumstances of the present case, which<\/p>\n
          also shows the real intention of the parties as held in<\/p>\n
          Roshan Lal vs. Ganpat and others<\/a> (supra), 2000-2 PLR<\/p>\n
          39, the area which was partitioned from North to South<\/p>\n
          and from East to West remained the same. Now when<\/p>\n
          appellant Satbir stepped into witness box as DW1, he has<\/p>\n
          admitted that there was wall in the Northern side of Z<\/p>\n
          portion of site plan Ex.PW6\/5. He has also admitted that<\/p>\n
          on the Southern side of Y portion of the site plan<\/p>\n
          Ex.PW6\/5, when site plan Ex.PW6\/5 was got prepared<\/p>\n
          houses had been constructed there. Thus, measurement<\/p>\n
          of the area which was partitioned amongst Satbir and his<\/p>\n
          brothers was definite from North to South. Now it may be<\/p>\n
          added here that as statement of Satbir Singh DW, the<\/p>\n
          area in between from East to West also remained the
\n R.S.A.No. 3792 of 2009 (O&M)                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
          same as Satbir when stepped into witness box as DW1, he ;<\/p>\n
          has admitted that in site plan Ex.P1, beyond FL line towards<\/p>\n
          East, there were already existing houses and beyond MH line<\/p>\n
          towards West, the LR of Jodha alias Dallu had cut the land into<\/p>\n
          plots before their partition. Now Satbir has admitted that site<\/p>\n
          plan Ex.PW6\/5 was correctly prepared on the date on which it<\/p>\n
          was prepared and they all the three brothers had put their<\/p>\n
          signatures after admitting it to be correct. He was admitted<\/p>\n
          that as per site plan Ex.PW6\/5, they had got an area 84 feet<\/p>\n
          each in length from North to South. Now this fact is also<\/p>\n
          supported by site plan Ex.PW6\/5 which site plan shows that all<\/p>\n
          the three brothers were allotted 84 feet each from North to<\/p>\n
          South.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          15.            Thus, what comes out is that the area that was<\/p>\n
          divided between the parties was definite and was not capable<\/p>\n
          of being reduced or increased.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          16.              As discussed above that area was equally<\/p>\n
          distributed between appellant and his two brothers. Thus, the<\/p>\n
          appellant Satbir can not claim an area of more than 84 feet in<\/p>\n
          width from north to south beyond the area of his brother Baljit<\/p>\n
          Singh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          17.            Thus, actually, respondent-plaintiff Jugbir Singh<\/p>\n
          was the owner of area upto 84 feet from North to South<\/p>\n
          beyond the area of appellant Satbir and thus, appellant Satbir<\/p>\n
          had no right to sell the portion beyond his 84 feet from<\/p>\n
          north to south in site plan Ex.PW6\/5. I am of the
\n R.S.A.No. 3792 of 2009 (O&M)                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
            confirmed view that learned lower court has rightly<\/p>\n
            reached to the conclusion that plaintiff Satbir is absolute<\/p>\n
            owner of strip of land of the size 13′ x 27′ shown in red<\/p>\n
            colour marked by letters ABCD in the site plan and has<\/p>\n
            rightly held sale deed to be illegal which includes area of<\/p>\n
            that strip. Therefore, there is no need to appoint any fresh<\/p>\n
            local commission and the judgment Mahabir and another<\/p>\n
            versus Surta and others (supra) 2006-1 PLR 490 is of no<\/p>\n
            help to the appellant.”<\/p>\n
           Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led<\/p>\n
by the parties have held that the plaintiff was absolute owner of the<\/p>\n
suit land and the sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of<\/p>\n
defendants No.1 and 2 was illegal, null and void.       In view of the<\/p>\n
report of the Local Commissioner, it was found that Satbir-defendant<\/p>\n
No.3 could not claim an area of more than 84 feet in width from North<\/p>\n
to South beyond the area of       his brother Baljit Singh.   The said<\/p>\n
finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below cannot be<\/p>\n
interfered with by this Court in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
           No substantial question of law arises in this regular<\/p>\n
second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                               (SABINA)\n                                                JUDGE\nOctober    23, 2009\nanita\n <\/pre>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Satbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And … on 23 October, 2009 R.S.A.No. 3792 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3792 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.10.2009 Satbir Singh ……Appellant Versus Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh and another …….Respondents CORAM: […]<\/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-86084","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSatbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And ... on 23 October, 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\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And ... on 23 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-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=\"2009-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-13T08:00:45+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And … on 23 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-13T08:00:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1820,\"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\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Satbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And ... on 23 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-13T08:00:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And … on 23 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Satbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And ... on 23 October, 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\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And ... on 23 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-13T08:00:45+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And … on 23 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-13T08:00:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009"},"wordCount":1820,"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\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009","name":"Satbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And ... on 23 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-13T08:00:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satbir-singh-vs-jugbir-singh-jaibir-singh-and-on-23-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satbir Singh vs Jugbir Singh @ Jaibir Singh And … on 23 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/86084","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=86084"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86084\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86084"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86084"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86084"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}