Sajjan Singh Dhillon Vs Thandi Ram and Ors.

Pr e sent RSA has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the concur r ent findings recor d ed by the learned Civil Ju d ge (Junior Division), Hisar v ide judgment and d ecree dated 10.12.1999 and b y the learned Additional Dis t rict Judge, Hisar vi d e judgment and decree dated 2 3 .03.2001, whereby the suit file d by the plaintiff for declaration has been dismissed.

¶19

Brief Facts

¶20

Th e case set up by the plaintiff , as gathered from the plaint and documents placed on record, is that the plainti f f is the owner in possession of h alf share of the ho u se constructed over Plot No.1, measuring 600 sq. yards, show n in TRIPTI SAINIred colour in t h e site plan. It is pleaded that t h e plaintiff is a retired Lt. Col o nel 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 2 -

¶22

from Indian Ar m y and is the son of defendant N o.1 and brother of defendant N o .2. It is averred th a t defendant No.1 has three da u ghters, namely Smt. Dharmo, S mt. Manki and Gi n a Devi. According to the pl a intiff, defendants No.1 and 2 , in connivance wit h each other, procured a judgm e nt and decree dated 25.11.198 9 in favour of defen d ant No.2, which is liable to be s et aside.

¶23

Th e plaintiff asserts that in N o vember 1989, the plaintiff and defendants ent e red into an agreement regarding division of joint family prop e rty and executed a deed of agreement, which was signed by the plaintiff and defendants and attested by witnesses. It is f urther stated that Plot No.1 w as purchased fro m joint family funds in the n ame of defendant No.1, and the residential koth i was constructed with joint fu n ds of the plaintiff and defendants. Defendant No.1 is stated to have expressed his intention to divide Kothi No.1 i nto two portions in his letter dated 11.11.1986 add r essed to the plaintiff. The plai n tiff claims that he spent about ₹20,000/- on renova t ion and partition by constructi n g a wall, thereby d ividing the kothi into two po r tions, and that possession of the divided portion s was given to the plaintiff and d efendant No.2 accordingly. 4. Th e plaintiff further states that th e parties had divided four item s of joint family pr o perty marked as A, B, C, and D in the division deed. Under H ead A, the plaintiff w as allotted a house situated at Village Nehla, valued at ₹60,0 0 0/-, out of which the plaintiff paid ₹30,000/- to de f endant No.2. The properties u n der Heads B and C were other land and houses, while the suit property is cov e red under Head D. Defendant No.2 allegedly ex p ressed his desire to purchase the plaintiff’s half s hare in Kothi No.1 for ₹2,60,0 0 0/-, and the plaintiff agreed to sell his share on ce r tain conditions. Defendant No. 2 was required to pay ₹26,000/ - as

¶24

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 3 -

¶26

earnest money by 08.11.1989 and the rema i ning amount by 07.05.1990. T he plaintiff pleads that although defendant No.2 p a id the earnest amount, he faile d to pay the balanc e , rendering the agreement voi d and restoring the earlier partit i on. The plaintiff a l leges that in order to defeat h is rights, defendants No.1 an d 2 obtained the im p ugned decree fraudulently.

¶27

Th e defendants filed their writte n statement denying the plaintiff’s case in toto. T h ey denied existence of joint fa m ily funds, the purchase of the p lot from joint fun d s, and any agreement of divisi o n as alleged. They contended t hat defendant No.1 purchased the plot in his excl u sive name, constructed the h o use from his own income, and never consented to any division. The defend a nts asserted that d e fendant No.2 is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property pursu a nt to a valid compromise decr e e dated 25.11.1989, binding o n all concerned incl u ding the plaintiff. They denied the plaintiff’s right, title or inte r est in the suit prop e rty and prayed for dismissal of t he suit.

¶28

Fr o m the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issue s :

¶29

Whether the plaintiff is o w ner in possession of 1/2 shar e of ho u se in dispute as detailed in th e head note of the plaint, if s o its ef fe ct? OPD

¶30

If issue No.1 is proved, the n whether the plaintiff is entitle d to ge t the revenue entries/municipal entries corrected in his nam e as all e ged? OPD

¶31

Whether the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1989 passe d in Ci v il Suit No.777-C dated 25.11.1 9 89 in favour of defendant No. 2 , is

¶32

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 4 -

¶34

wr o ng, illegal and misrepresentati o n and not binding upon the ri g hts of t he plaintiff? OPD

¶35

If Issues No.1 & 2 are pro v ed, whether the plaintiff is enti t led to a ny injunction as prayed for? O P D

¶36

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present s u it? O P D

¶37

Whether the suit is not main t ainable in the present form? OPD

¶38

Whether the plaintiff is est o pped by his own act and con d uct fro m filing the present suit? OPD

¶39

Whether the suit is time-bar r ed? OPD

¶40

Whether the plaintiff has n o cause of action to file the pre s ent sui t ? OPD

¶41

Whether the suit is bad f o r mis-joinder and non-joinde r of ne c essary parties? OPD 11. Whether the suit is not prop e rly valued for the purposes of c o urt fee and jurisdiction? OPD 12. Relief.

¶42

In support of his case, the plaint i ff examined Ram Singh as P W 1, Chhabil Dass a s PW2, Parminder as PW3, Haridat as PW4, Ravi Shankar as P W 5, Om Parkash as P W6, Suresh as PW7, Jaimal as PW8, Rakesh as PW9, Ramph a l as PW10, Wazir a s PW11, Ram Sarup as PW12, B eer Singh as PW13, Sardara Si n gh, Advocate, as P W 14, Bal Mukand as PW15 a n d Sajjan Singh as PW16. Cer t ain documents wer e also tendered in evidence.

¶43

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶44

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 5 -

¶45

Defendant No.1 appeared as DW 1 and defendant No.2 as DW2 and they also produ c ed documents in support of the i r defence.

¶46

Findings of the trial Court

¶47

Th e trial Court, after appreciatin g the entire oral and documen t ary evidence, held t hat the plaintiff had completely failed to establish his plea that P lot No.1 and the h o use constructed thereon were p u rchased or built out of joint Hi n du family funds, o r that any valid partition of the suit property had ever taken pl a ce. The Court note d that although the plaintiff reli e d heavily on an alleged agree m ent (Ex.PW5/2) s a id to record the division o f joint family property and the arrangement r e garding Kothi No.1, the said document was unregistered and amounted to a n instrument of partition r e quiring compulsory registrat i on, rendering it ina d missible in evidence. The Co u rt further found that the plaintiff’s version of parti t ion and delivery of possession was not supported by any reli a ble evidence. The oral statements of witnesses wer e inconsistent, and even the plai n tiff as PW16 admit t ed that no portion of the hous e was in his actual possession. T he Local Commis s ioner’s inspection also revea l ed that the plaintiff was no t in possession of a n y part of the disputed property . The Court observed that the l e tter dated 11.11.19 8 6 allegedly written by defenda n t No.1 did not prove any partit i on, nor did it show that the property was joint Hin d u family property. On the contr a ry, the evidence e s tablished that the plot and the construction were in the exclu s ive ownership of d e fendant No.1, who was fully c o mpetent to transfer it in favou r of defendant No.2 . The Court also held that the pl a intiff failed to show that the pa r ties were governed by Hindu law so as to claim a coparcenary interest. Rather, b e ing Jats governed by custom, no presumption of jo i nt Hindu family property coul d be

¶48

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 6 -

¶50

drawn. Conseq u ently, the compromise decree dated 25.11.1989 was held to be perfectly legal, valid and binding, and all th e issues concerning the plaint i ff’s ownership, enti t lement to correction of entries, challenge to the decree, injunc t ive relief, and mai n tainability were decided agai n st him. The suit was accordi n gly dismissed.

¶51

Findings of the First Appellate Court

¶52

Th e learned First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the t rial Court after a c o mprehensive re-appraisal of th e entire evidence and held that the plaintiff had ut t erly failed to prove that the su i t property was joint Hindu fa m ily property or tha t he had any share, title or poss e ssion therein. The Court relie d on the plaintiff’s o w n admissions that the plot in d i spute had been allotted exclusi v ely to his father, Major Thandi Ram, and that the p laintiff himself had been allott e d a separate plot a s an army officer, thereby nega t ing the plea of joint acquisitio n or blending of se l f-acquired property into the j o int family hotchpotch. The C o urt found that the p laintiff had produced no docu m entary proof of contribution to the construction of the suit house, and the oral tes t imony of PW9, PW10, PW11 and PW13 regardi n g partition or delivery o f possession was inconsist e nt, uncorroborated and insufficient. It was also held that the unregistered d eed Ex.PW5/2 reli e d upon by the plaintiff was i n admissible as it amounted to an instrument of p artition requiring compulsory r egistration, and no permission for leading second a ry evidence had been sought. T he Court endorsed the trial Co u rt’s reasoning that t he parties, being Jats from Har y ana, were governed by custo m ary law and not b y Hindu coparcenary law, and therefore no presumption of j o int Hindu family p roperty could arise. It furthe r held that the letters written by

¶53

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶54

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 7 -

¶55

defendant No.1 did not establish any actual par t ition or delivery of possession, and that the plainti f f was admittedly not in possession of any portion of the suit property on the date of filing of the suit. The a p pellate Court also concluded that a mere declarato r y suit without seeking conseq u ential relief of possession was not maintainable u n der Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Finally, the Court h eld that the plaintif f , having no right or interest in t he property, could not impeach the compromise decree dated 25.11.1989, and si n ce no fraud or illegality had been proved, the de c ree was valid and binding. C o nsequently, the appeal was fo u nd devoid of merit and was dismissed with costs, and the judgment and decree d a ted 10.12.1999 of t h e learned Civil Judge (Junior D i vision), Hisar were affirmed.

¶56

Aggrieved by the concurrent fi n dings of the Courts below, the appellant has f i led the present regular second appeal, which is contested by the respondents.

¶57

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant

¶58

Le a rned counsel for the appellant a rgued that the Courts below fa i led to correctly ap p reciate the evidence which, ac c ording to him, clearly establis h ed that the suit pr o perty was purchased and const r ucted out of joint family funds, as even DW-1 M a jor Thandi Ram, father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, h ad admitted his si g natures on various letters Ex. P W-16/A, PW-16/B, PW-16/C and PW-16/D addr e ssed to the plaintiff, which disclosed that the property was t o be distributed bet w een the plaintiff and defendant No.2. It was further submitted t hat Ex.PW-16/A a d mitted by DW-1, the compl a int Ex.PW-15/1 given by M a jor Thandi Ram to the police, and the compromi s e Ex.PW-15/2 all showed that the defendant hims e lf treated the property as joint family property. It was argued t hat

¶59

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 8 -

¶61

DW-1 also ad m itted the compromise deed Ex. P W-15/2 and DW-2 Lt. Col. Pa r tap Singh similarl y admitted their signatures, proving joint acquisition. Cou n sel contended that once such evidence was on r e cord, it stood established that the property was c o nstructed from joint family fu n ds. It was then submitted that, the moment it is proved that the appellant had h alf share in the suit property, the judgment and d e cree dated 25.11.1989 passed i n favour of respondent No.2 be h ind the back of the appellant was clearly collusiv e and fraudulent, the appellant not having been im p leaded as a party in that suit. L earned counsel further argued t hat in Civil Suit N o .777 dated 25.11.1989 (Ex.P1 4 ), defendant No.2 in para 2 of the plaint himself a d mitted that the suit property w a s joint Hindu family property, and this admission, coupled with the letters writt e n by Major Thandi Ram, cle a rly proved that the p roperty was purchased from jo i nt family funds while both brot h ers were residing t o gether. It was contended that o n ce the earlier decree was allege d to be fraudulent, t h e burden shifted to the respon d ents to prove that the suit prop e rty was not joint f a mily property. Counsel argued that the compromise deed Ex. P W- 15/2 stood duly proved by PW-15 Ram Singh, C lerk from SSP Office, Hissar, and PW-2 proved t h at the property was rented o u t by B & R Hisar, showing j o int ownership. He s ubmitted that the file noting da t ed 25.11.1989 at page 106 sho w ed that the suit ha d been ordered to be registered f o r hearing on 27.11.1989, howe v er, on the same da y , without waiting for the date f ixed, proxy counsels for both s i des appeared and h a d the matter decreed in favour of defendant No.2. The absenc e of the real couns e l and the unexplained manne r in which the decree was pa s sed showed fraud, and on this ground alone, the decree deserved to be set as i de. Learned couns e l emphasised that the admitte d letters Ex.PW-16/A to PW-1 6 /D,

¶62

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶63

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 9 -

¶64

admitted by D W -1, showed that the suit prope r ty was joint and that the appel l ant had half share. It was further argued that bo t h the Courts below ignored v ital documentary a n d oral admissions of DW-1 an d DW-2, and wrongly held that the plaintiff was n o t in possession, whereas the a p pellant was in possession of h alf portion and po s session need not be claimed i n a joint property. Lastly, cou n sel submitted that t he appellant had a pre-existin g right in the joint property, w h ich was purchased from joint family funds, and t he findings of both courts be l ow regarding custo m and applicability of Hindu l a w were contrary to pleadings and evidence and th e refore unsustainable in law.

¶65

Submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondents

¶66

Le a rned counsel for the respon d ents argued that the concur r ent findings of bot h courts below are based on a c o rrect appreciation of evidence and require no inte r ference, as the plaintiff failed t o prove that the suit property w as joint Hindu fa m ily property or that any joint f a mily nucleus existed from whi c h it could be purc h ased or constructed. On the c ontrary, the evidence shows t hat separate plots w ere allotted to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in their indivi d ual capacities as A rmy personnel, and both cons t ructed their houses independe n tly from their ow n funds. It was emphasised th a t the plaintiff himself admitte d in cross-examination that the plot in dispute was a llotted to defendant No.1, that the house was con s tructed by his father, and tha t he had no receipts, accounts , or documentary p r oof of having contributed towa r ds the purchase or constructio n of the suit proper t y. Counsel further submitted t h at the alleged deed of agree m ent dated 08.11.19 8 9 (Ex.PW15/2) is neither regist e red nor stamped, was never pro v ed in accordance with law, and is inadmissible, and even otherwise it is n o t a

¶67

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶68

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 10 -

¶69

memorandum of partition but an instrument re q uiring compulsory registration; the photocopy pro d uced without laying foundatio n for secondary evidence canno t be relied upon. T h e alleged letters relied upon by the plaintiff merely show an expression of i n tention by defendant No.1 but do not establish that any parti t ion ever took place or that possession of half share w as handed over to the plaintiff; the plaintiff’s own admission that he was not in p ossession of any part of the h o use demolishes his c ase. Counsel also relied upon t h e plaintiff’s conduct, including the criminal compl a ints and disputes with family m embers, to show that the story put forth was an af t erthought. It was contended th a t the consent decrees Ex.P142 and Ex.P143, under which defendant No.1 transfer r ed the property to defendant N o .2, are perfectly le g al and valid, and the plaintiff, h aving no right or interest in the suit property, cann o t challenge their registration o r validity; moreover, the plai n tiff himself benefited from a similar consent de c ree (Ex.D2) without raising any objection, and h ence he is estopped from dis p uting the validity of such dec r ees now. The resp o ndents argued that the plaintif f ’s suit was not maintainable a s he was admittedl y not in possession of the s uit property and failed to seek consequential r e lief, attracting the bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief A ct, 1963. Lastly, c o unsel submitted that the parti e s are governed by customary law, not Hindu law, and there is no presumption o f joint Hindu family or joint fa m ily property amon g Jats of Haryana, thus, the pl a intiff failed to prove any cus t om entitling him to a share in the property and th e findings of both courts below are fully justified.

¶70

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶71

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 11 -

¶72

Findings of this Court

¶73

Ha v ing heard learned counsel fo r the parties at length and ha v ing meticulously e x amined the entire evidence, th e judgments of both courts bel o w, and the submis s ions made in the present appe a l, this Court finds no substanc e in any of the grou n ds urged by the appellant. The e ntire case of the appellant revo l ves around three br o ad aspects: (i) the nature of the suit property as Joint Hindu Fa m ily property; (ii) t he allegation that the conse n t decrees dated 25.11.1989 and 02.12.1989 we r e obtained fraudulently and a r e illegal; and (iii) the evident i ary worth of the al l eged deed of agreement dated 08.11.1989 and the various let t ers allegedly writte n by defendant No.1 to the appe l lant. 15. O n the question whether the sui t property constitutes Joint Hi n du Family (JHF) p roperty, the appellant has utt e rly failed to discharge the in i tial burden. The pl a intiff himself, appearing as PW 1 6, admitted that the plot in dis p ute was allotted to defendant No.1 individually b y virtue of his Army status, in the same way a sep a rate plot was allotted to the pla i ntiff himself. Once the allotme n t is individual and n ot ancestral, the presumption o f joint family or joint family nuc l eus does not arise. T he consistent evidence of DW1 (the father) and DW2 (defen d ant No.2) shows t h at the house was constructed by defendant No.1 from his o wn funds, the acc o unts of which were maintaine d by him. The plaintiff could not produce any re c eipt, account book, proof of c o ntributing any amount towards the purchase or co n struction. His vague assertion t h at he “gave money to his fathe r ” is an unsubstantia t ed statement and has rightly b e en discarded by the courts bel o w. The appellant r e lied heavily on the stray admi s sion of DW1 in cross-examina t ion that “he and his father constituted a joint Hindu family”, but such a bald statem e nt,

¶74

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶75

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 12 -

¶76

without any pleading, proof of jointness, com m on mess, or joint income, does not automatically c o nvert self-acquired property in t o joint family property. The la w is well-settled tha t mere membership in a Hindu family does not make the prop e rty joint. What mu s t be proved is blending of sep a rate property into the joint fa m ily hotchpotch, so m ething completely absent here. The courts below have also rig h tly noted that the parties are Jats of Haryana who a re governed by customary law and not by the un c odified principles of Hindu l aw relating to coparcenary. T he appellant has l e d no evidence whatsoever to s how the existence of any cus t om under which h e acquires a right in the self-ac q uired property of his father. T h us, the conclusion t hat the property is not joint Hindu family property stands fir m ly established.

¶77

Co m ing to the alleged deed of agreement dated 08.11.1 9 89 (Ex.PW15/2), t h e arguments of the appellant d o not withstand legal scrutiny. T he document prod u ced is only a photocopy, the original was never produced, the scribe was not examined, no foundational fa c ts for leading secondary evid e nce were ever est a blished and even otherwise, the document is unstamped and unregistered. M ore importantly, the document o n its face is not a memorandu m of past partition but an instrument proposing di v ision of properties in a partic u lar manner, a docu m ent that would compulsorily r e quire registration under Sectio n 17 of the Registra t ion Act. The courts below the r efore rightly held it inadmissi b le. Even if one w e re to read it for collateral pu r poses, it does not prove that any partition actual l y took place, or that possess i on was ever handed over to the appellant. The a ppellant’s own admissions suc h as his admission that he was li v ing separately fro m his father since 1966, that his ration card, voter card, electri c ity

¶78

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶79

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 13 -

¶80

connection, and tax payments were all at his se p arate residence, and that no por t ion of the suit hou s e was ever in his possession, completely belie the plea of p r ior partition or pos s ession.

¶81

Th e letters allegedly written by defendant No.1 (Ex.PW16/ A to PW16/D) also d o not assist the appellant. A ca r eful reading of these letters sh o ws that they conta i n expressions of desire or int e ntion to settle disputes within the family, not pro o f of any actual partition or transfer. None of the letters record t hat half the house was handed over to the ap p ellant, none mention deliver y of possession, no n e show that the appellant ever resided in the suit house. At b est, they show co n templation of some arrang e ment which never materiali s ed, particularly wh e n viewed in light of the fact that defendant No.1 subseque n tly transferred the property to defendant No.2 th r ough consent decrees. The let t ers cannot override the admitted documentary posi t ion that the appellant never ent e red into possession and never contributed any amo u nt towards construction. 18. Th e allegation that the consent d e crees (Ex.P142 & Ex.P143) w ere obtained fraud u lently also stands demolish e d. The appellant has placed no evidence whats o ever to prove fraud. The enti r e plea of fraud is premised on the appellant not b e ing impleaded in the earlier su i t, however, when the appellant has no legal right i n the suit property, there was n o requirement of impleading hi m . It has also come o n record that the plaintiff himse l f secured a consent decree (Ex. D 2) in his favour o n the same date i.e.02.12.1989 a n d at that time, he never raised any objection that h is own decree required registra t ion or was otherwise illegal. Once the plaintiff ac c epted the validity of the sam e procedure in his own favour, he cannot be perm i tted to challenge the same proc e ss when it benefits defendant N o .2.

¶82

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶83

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 14 -

¶84

Fraud must be s pecifically pleaded and strictly p roved. Nothing on record sugg e sts that defendant No.1 acted under any coercio n , deception, or misrepresenta t ion while suffering the decree. The lower appell a te Court has also relied upon the plaintiff’s cond u ct, including criminal complai n ts arising out of family dispute s , to conclude that t h e plea of fraud is an afterthough t .

¶85

Th e argument regarding admissio n in the plaint of the earlier suit a lso cannot advanc e the appellant’s case. Even if defendant No.2, in an earlier s uit, mentioned that t he property was “joint”, such a d mission cannot, in law, create t itle where none ex i sts. Title in immovable proper t y cannot arise from an admis s ion contrary to the d ocuments of allotment and co n struction. Further, the courts be l ow rightly observe d that such admissions are inad m issible for want of proof that the suit itself was genuine or contested; moreover, t he appellant was required to prove his independent title, not rely on a stray stateme n t. 20. La s tly, the finding that the plainti f f was not in possession of the suit property on th e date of the suit is unassailable. The plaintiff never pleaded possession; ne v er sought relief of possession a nd admitted in cross-examina t ion that he had no possession. The Local Commi s sioner’s report also supports this. Thus, the suit f o r declaration simpliciter was ba r red by the proviso to Section 3 4 of the Specific Re l ief Act, and rightly dismissed.

¶86

Conclusion

¶87

In v iew of the above exhaustive c onsideration of every point arg u ed by the appellan t , this Court finds that the findings recorded by both courts be l ow are supported b y evidence and law, are neither p erverse nor illegal, and call fo r no

¶88

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶89

RSA-2098-2001 (O&M) - 15 -

¶90

interference.Th e appellant has failed to de m onstrate any jurisdictional e r ror, misreading of e v idence, or perversity. Accordin g ly, the appeal stands dismissed. 22. Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶91

December 03, 2025 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes/N o .

¶92

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.12.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sajjan Singh Dhillon v. Thandi Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajjan Singh Dhillon v. Thandi Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwinder Singh and Another Vs Narinder Kapoor and Others

Sarbjinder Singh Bhullar Alias Bittu Bhullar Vs M/S Primelink Real Estates Private Limited and Others

Baba Jeet Singh @ Sant Baba Jeet Singh Vs Sant Jaspal Singh

Suresh Vs Dei Ram etc.

Jasvinde Singh Saini Vs Gurdeep Singh (Now Deceased) through His Legal Representative

Mohinder Singhg and Ors. Vs Nirmal Singh and Ors.