Dismissed¶19

Gurmeeta v. Smadh Baba JAGROOP0 Dass

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2025RSA/2476/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Amarinder Singh Grewal J., oral, 02.09.2025) dismisses RSA Nos.2476 & 2477 of 2000 and COCP No.484 of 2001: no substantial questions of law required in second appeal under Section 41 Punjab Courts Act 1918 (relying on Pankajakshi (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur (2019) 17 SCC 71, Gurbachan Singh); Mohatmim status of plaintiff No.2 established via jamabandi 1986-87 and DW-1 admission; defendant No.1's ba-waja-pishar possession held to be through the Mohatmim; khasra girdawari entries confer no exclusive possession; local commissioner's report ignored; concurrent findings upheld.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the concurrent findings of both courts below are upheld and the regular second appeals dismissed, leaving the plaintiffs' decrees intact; the contempt petition is dismissed as such.

Gurmeeta Vs Smadh Baba JAGROOP0 Dass — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether defendant No.1 had duly proved possession since 1976 of the land comprised in Khatauni No.255, mustil No.38//Killa No.1(8-0), 2(8-0), 3/1/7-4, 9/7-12, 10/8-0, such that his hostile and continued possession ought to have been protected. +3 more

¶13

Court's answer

The case set up by defendant No.1 of exclusive possession of the entire suit property fails flat: plaintiff No.2 stood recorded in possession of the suit property as per Ex.P7 except the land comprised in Khatauni Nos.255, 256 and 257, with defendant No.1 shown in possession of Khasra Nos.38/1(8-0), 2(8-0), 3/1(7-0) and 10(8-0) totalling 31 kanals 4 marlas, Gurmail Singh in Khasra No.38/9(7-12) and Shingara Singh in Khasra No.37/15(8-0).

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 duly proved that the property was owned by plaintiff No.1-Samadh with its affairs being managed by plaintiff No.2, establishing plaintiff No.2's status as Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh.

¶16

Key takeaways

Defendant No.1-Gurmeet Dass, while appearing as DW-1, admitted in his cross-examination that plaintiff No.2 was Mohtamim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh; his concocted story of plaintiff No.2's involvement with a lady was discarded by both the courts below as unsubstantiated by any cogent evidence.ratio¶16
Entry in column No.9 of jamabandi Ex.P7 showed defendant No.1 in possession of the aforesaid khasra numbers as 'ba-waja-pishar', which connotes that defendant No.1 was in cultivating possession through plaintiff No.2, his father, the Mohatmim/manager of plaintiff No.1-Samadh; hence his possession was not exclusive.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order disposing RSA Nos.2476 & 2477 of 2000 (O&M) by Gurmeeta (since deceased) through LRs against Smadh Baba Jagroop Dass and others, and COCP No.484 of 2001 (O&M) by Sukhchain Dass and Pritam Kaur. The appeals challenged the learned 1st Appellate Court's judgment dated 29.03.2000 dismissing the defendants' appeal, allowing the plaintiffs' appeal and decreeing the suits for permanent injunction in toto. Relying on Pankajakshi (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh, the Court held that questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. On facts: jamabandi 1986-87 and DW-1's cross-examination admission established plaintiff No.2 as Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh; defendant No.1's possession of Khasra Nos.38/1(8-0), 2(8-0), 3/1(7-0), 10(8-0) was recorded as ba-waja-pishar, i.e. cultivating possession through plaintiff No.2 as manager; mere khasra girdawari entries (Ex.D1-D4) conferred no exclusive possessory right; the local commissioner's report was rightly ignored as he consulted neither the revenue record nor any revenue official. Concurrent findings upheld; regular second appeals dismissed; contempt petition dismissed as such; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

RSA No.2476 of 2000 - 1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

105 RSA No.2476 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision:02.09.2025

¶4

Gurmeeta (since deceased) through LRs ...Appellant

¶5

¶6

Smadh Ba b a Jagroop Dass and others ...Respondents 2. RSA No.2477 of 2000 (O&M) Gurmeeta (since deceased) through LRs ...Appellant Vs

¶7

Smadh Ba b a Jagroop Dass and others ...Respondents 3. COCP No.484 of 2001 (O&M) Sukhchain D ass and another ...Petitioners

¶8

¶9

Surjeet Da s s Chela Tulsi Dass Chela Nihal Dass and others

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶12

Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Ad v ocate with Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate for the appellant(s) in RSA Nos.2476 and 2477 of 2000 and for the petitioners in COCP N o .484 of 2001.

¶13

Mr. Devansh Verma, Advocat e for Mr. Anmol Singh Dhillon, Ad v ocate for appellant No.2 (responde n t No.5 transposed as appellan t No.2 vide order dated 10.08.2 0 00).

¶14

Mr. Sukhjinder Singh, Advoc a te Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for respondent No.1 in RSA N o s.2476 and 2477 of 2000.

¶15

-.-

¶16

AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL J. (ORAL)

¶17

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶18

RSA No.2476 of 2000 - 2-

¶19

This order will dispose of tw o regular second appeals bearin g No.2476 & 2477 of 2000 and a contempt p etition bearing No.484 of 2001 , as they arise from the same proceedings. F or the sake of brevity, the fact s are being e n umerated from RSA No.2476 o f 2000.

¶20

The instant regular second ap p eals have been preferred by th e appellant-d e fendant against the judgmen t and decree dated 29.10.199 4 passed by t he learned trial Court whereby two suits filed by respondents - plaintiffs f o r permanent injunction restraini n g the defendants, their servant s and agents from interfering into the pos s ession of plaintiffs in the sui t property h a ve been partly decreed and ag a inst the aforesaid judgment an d decree of t h e learned trial Court, both th e plaintiffs and defendants wen t into appeal s and vide judgment dated 29.0 3 .2000, the learned 1^st Appellat e Court dism i ssed the appeal preferred by th e defendants whereas the appea l filed by th e plaintiffs was allowed and ult i mately, the suit was decreed i n toto. The c ontempt petition has been pr e ferred by Sukhchain Dass an d Pritam Ka u r, legal representatives of a ppellant-defendant for willfu l disobedien c e of order dated 24.07.2000 pa s sed by this Court at the instanc e of respond e nts-plaintiffs.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, t h e parties shall be referred to i n terms of th e ir status before the learned trial Court.

¶22

In brief, the facts are that two suits were filed by the plaintiff s seeking pe r manent injunction against the d efendants for restraining them , their agents and servants from interferi n g into the possession of th e plaintiffs w ith respect to the suit propertie s as mentioned in the head not e of both suits, details of which are as under: -

¶23

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶24

RSA No.2476 of 2000 - 3-

¶25

“ Suit No.139 dated 13.03.1991

¶26

Suit for permanent injuncti o n restraining the defendants, their servants and agents fro m interfering into the possessio n of the plaintiffs from the re s idential house as shown in th e attached site plan and the a gricultural land comprised o f Khewat Khata No.164/254 m ustil 27//killa No.11/8-0, 19/7 - 12, 20/8-0, 21/6-0, 22/8-0, 23/7-4, 26/2-0, mustil 28//kil a No.15/2/4-0, 16/8-0, 17/8-0, 18/8-0, 19/8-0, 23/8-0, 24/8-0, 25/8-0, mustil 37//killa No.3 / 8-0, 4/8-0, 5/8-0, 6/8-0, musti l 71//killa No.9/0-2, mutil 7 4//killa No.33/0-14, khatoun i No.255 mustil 38//kila No.1/8-0, 2/8-0, 3/1/7-4, 10/8-0, khatouni No.256 mustil 38// k illa 9/7-12, khatouni 257 musti l 37//killa No.15/8-0, total m e asuring 186 kanals 8 marla s situated within the revenue e s tate of village Ladpur Sub Teh. Amloh, District Fatehgarh S a hib.

¶27

Suit No.729 dated 22.10.1990

¶28

Suit for permanent injuncti o n restraining the defendants, their servants and agents fro m interfering into the possessio n of the plaintiff and from for c ibly dispossessing the plainti ff from land comprised of khe w at/khatouni No.164/254, Rect. 27//Killa No.21(6-0), 26 (2- 0 ) situated in the revenue estat e of Village Ladpur Sub The . Amloh, District Patiala, tw o electric motors 5 B.H.P. along with their respective kotha s and two rooms of sevens kh a ns each installed/located in th e above land.”

¶29

In brief, the facts of Suit N o .139 dated 13.03.1991 are tha t plaintiff N o .2-Surjit Singh, being the Moh a tmim of Samadh Baba Jagroo p Dass situat e d in the revenue estate of Vill a ge Ladpur was in possession o f the suit lan d including the residential house as shown in the site plan and a s PANKAJ KUMAR enumerate d herein above and was owned b y plaintiff No.1-Samadh Bab a 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶30

RSA No.2476 of 2000 - 4-

¶31

Jagroop D a ss. Further, two electric moto r s were also installed in the sui t land for irr i gation purpose. Defendants were trying to grab the suit land a s well as the r esidential house with the help o f police. They also filed a fals e complaint a nd one ASI accompanied by s o me police officials rounded u p plaintiff N o .2 and forcibly obtained his th u mb impression on some blan k papers at g u npoint. They were requested n ot to take law in their hands bu t since they d id not pay any heed and conti n uously threatened the plaintiff s to disposse s s them from the suit property, i n stant suits were filed. 6. Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement an d denied the f act that plaintiff No.2 was Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1-Samad h and assert e d that it was defendant No. 1 -Gurmeet Singh, who was i n possession of the land as comprised in mu s til No.38//killa No.1/8-0, 2/8-0 , 3/1/7-4, 9/7-12, 10/8-0 since the year 1976-77 and further that th e defendants were also in possession of the house as owners as well as of th e electric mo t ors. Replication to the written statement was filed by plaintiff s controverti n g the stand taken by defenda n ts in the written statement an d contents of the plaint were reiterated. 7. In another suit bearing No.729 dated 22.10.1990, the lan d mentioned t herein has already been included in details of suit property o f suit No.13 9 dated 13.03.1991. In additio n thereto, permanent injunctio n was sough t with respect to dispossession from two electric motors of 5 B.H.P alon g with kothas, two rooms of 7 khans each installed/located i n the suit lan d . It was also pleaded in this s u it that defendant No.1-Gurmee t Singh was t he real son of plaintiff No.2 a n d in connivance with defendan t

¶32

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶33

RSA No.2476 of 2000 - 5-

¶34

No.2-Surjit Kaur, he was keeping bad e y e on the suit property with a n intention to grab the same. 8. In the written statement filed b y defendants, besides taking th e preliminar y objections qua maintainability , barred by Section 10 CPC an d locus stan d i , on merit, it was denied that p laintiff No.2 was Mohatmim o f plaintiff N o .1-Samadh and asserted that d efendant No.1-Gurmeet Sing h was in pos s ession of the suit property. 9. From the pleadings of the parties, separate issues were frame d in both the s uits, however, during the pend e ncy of civil suits, an applicatio n was moved for consolidation of both suits, as the suit property was same a s well as iss u es for consideration were com m on. The aforesaid applicatio n was allowe d vide order dated 04.06.1993 w ith a direction that the evidenc e will be re c orded only in the main cas e i.e. Civil Suit No.139 date d 13.03.1991 and in the said suit, following i s sues were framed:-

¶35

“1. Whether the plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of the property i n dispute except the residential h ouse? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff No.2 i s in possession of the property i n dispute as Mohatmim? OPP

¶36

3. Whether the suit is not mai n tainable? OPD

¶37

4. Whether the plaintiffs ar e entitled to the injunction a s requested for? 4A. Whether the pleas taken b y the defendants in the amende d written statement are barre d by principle of res judicata ? OPP

¶38

4B. Whether the defendants are stopped by their act an d conduct from taking pleas in t he amended written statement ? OPP

¶39

5. Relief.

¶40

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶41

RSA No.2476 of 2000 - 6-

¶42

In Civil Suit No.729 dated 22.10.1990, following issues wer e

¶43

framed:-

¶44

“1. Whether plaintiff No.2 i s Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1 Samadh? OPP

¶45

2. Whether the plaintiffs a re in possession of the sui t land?OPP

¶46

3. Whether the suit is not m a intainable in the present from ? OPD

¶47

4. Whether the suit is liable t o be stayed U/S 10 of the CPC ? OPD.

¶48

5. Whether the plaintiffs a r e entitled to the injunction a s requested for? OPP

¶49

6. Relief.”

¶50

On appreciation of oral as we l l as documentary evidence, th e learned tri a l Court vide judgment and d ecree dated 29.10.1994, partl y decreed th e Civil Suit No.139 dated 13.0 3 .1991 for permanent injunctio n restraining the defendants, their servants a nd agents from interfering int o the possession of plaintiffs qua suit proper t y except part of the suit land a s comprised in Khasra No.38/1(8-0), 2(8- 0 ), 3/1(7-0) and 10(8-0), tota l measuring 3 1 kanals 4 marlas, meaning th e reby, suit qua aforesaid part o f the suit la n d was dismissed; whereas Civi l Suit No.729 dated 22.10.199 0 was decree d fully.

¶51

Both the plaintiffs and defen d ants went into appeals agains t the aforesa i d judgment and decree dated 2 9 .10.1994 passed by the learne d trial Court and vide judgment dated 29.03.2000, the learned 1^st Appellat e Court dism i ssed the appeal preferred by th e defendants whereas the appea l filed by th e plaintiffs was allowed and th e suit filed by the plaintiffs wa s

¶52

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶53

RSA No.2476 of 2000 - 7-

¶54

decreed in toto. Aggrieved against t h e same, the defendants hav e approache d this Court by way of instant re g ular second appeals. 13. Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned S enior Counsel assisted by Mr . Ritvik Gar g , Advocate submits that the lea r ned 1^st Appellate Court gravel y erred in de c reeing the suit of the plaintiffs in toto by ignoring the fact tha t defendant N o.1 had duly proved possession of land comprised in Khaton i No.255, m u stil No.38//Killa No.1(8-0), 2 (8-0), 3/1/7-4, 9/7-12, 10/8-0 . Furthermo r e, defendant No.1 had been in p ossession of the aforesaid lan d since 1976 till the filing of the suit in 1990, thus, his possession was hostil e and contin u ed, which ought to have been p r otected. Both the Courts belo w have not r e ndered any finding on the is s ue whether plaintiff No.2 wa s Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh an d in the absence of any suc h finding, th e suit filed by the plaintiffs se e king permanent injunction wa s wrongly d e creed. In fact, on 21.09.1999, panchayats of various village s unanimous l y decided to appoint defendan t No.1 as Mohtamim of plaintif f No.1-Samadh and in pursuance thereto, th e community of Shri Garib Das s Jee appoin t ed defendant No.1 as Mohatmi m of plaintiff No.1-Samadh. It i s also argue d that report of local commissio n er has been wrongly discarde d by both the Courts below.

¶55

Per contra, learned counsel ap p earing for respondents submit s that the ju d gments and decrees passed by b oth the Courts below are base d on correct appreciation of facts and law a nd therefore, no interference i s required in the regular second appeals filed by the appellants. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gon e through pa p er book with their able assistan c e.

¶56

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶57

RSA No.2476 of 2000 - 8-

¶58

As regards the argument rais e d by learned senior counsel fo r the appella n ts that there is no finding rende r ed by both the Courts below o n the status of plaintiff No.2 as Mohat m im of plaintiff No.1-Samadh , reference i s made to jamabandi for the y e ar 1986-87, which duly prove d that the pr o perty was the ownership of p l aintiff No.1-Samadh, affairs o f which wer e being managed by plaintiff No . 2 as proved from testimonies o f PW-1 Surjeet Dass and PW-2 Banta Si n gh. Rather, defendant No.1 - Gurmeet D a ss while appearing as DW-1 in his cross-examination, admitte d the plainti f f No.2 being Mohtamim of p laintiff No.1-Samadh, thoug h concocted a story of him being involved with a lady but the same wa s discarded b y both the Courts below as was not substantiated by any cogen t evidence.

¶59

The case set up by defendan t No.1 that he was in exclusiv e possession of the entire suit property fa l ls flat, as plaintiff No.2 stoo d recorded i n possession of the suit propert y as per Ex.P7 except the lan d comprised i n Khatauni Nos.255, 256 and 257. Defendant No.1 was show n in possessi o n of Khasra No.38/1(8-0), 2 ( 8 -0), 3/1(7-0) and 10(8-0), tota l measuring 3 1 kanals 4 marlas and Gurmai l Singh, another son of plaintif f No.2- Surji t Dass had been recorded in pos s ession of Khasra No.38/9(7-12 ) and Shing a ra Singh in Khasra No.37/15 ( 8-0). With respect to Khasr a Nos.38/9 a n d 37/15, a change of khasra gi r dawari stood recorded in favou r of plaintif f No.2-Surjit Dass w.e.f. Khar i f 1990 to Kharif 1991. Wit h respect to Khasra No.38/1(8-0), 2 (8-0), 3/1(7-0) and 10(8-0), entry i n column No.9 of jambandi Ex.P7, defendan t No.1 was shown in possessio n of aforesa i d khasra numbers as ba-waj a -pishar, which connotes tha t PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶60

RSA No.2476 of 2000 - 9-

¶61

defendant N o.1 was in cultivating posses s ion through plaintiff No.2, hi s father. It was duly established that pl a intiff No.2 was Mohatmim o f plaintiff N o .1-Samadh and being manager o f the property of plaintiff No.1 - Samadh, d efendant No.1 was in poss e ssion through plaintiff No.2 . Therefore, it is rightly held by the learne d 1^st Appellate Court that mer e recording o f the name of defendant No.1 i n khasra girdawaries, Ex.D1 t o D4, does n o t confer him exclusive posses s ory right of the land in dispute , forming pa r t of Khasra No.38//1(8-0), 2(8 - 0), 3/1(7-4), 9(7-12) and 10(8 - 0). Furth e r, As regards, report of the l o cal commissioner, the learne d Courts bel o w have rightly not taken into c o nsideration his report, as neithe r he consulted the revenue record nor took h e lp of any revenue official. Th e exclusive possession of defendant No.1 ca n not be established merely fro m the fact th a t when the local commissioner reached at the spot, son o f defendant N o.1 started cutting the crop sta n ding at the suit property. 18. In view of the judgments p a ssed by the Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, questions of law are not required to be fra m ed in second appeal before th e Punjab an d Haryana High Court whose j u risdiction is circumscribed b y provisions o f Section 41 of the Punjab Cou r ts Act, 1918. 19. As an upshot of above discuss i on, this Court finds no illegalit y and perver s ity in concurrent finding of f a ct rendered by both the Court s below and t he same is upheld. The regular second appeals are dismissed.

¶62

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶63

RSA No.2476 of 2000 - 10-

¶64

In view of the fact that r egular second appeals stan d dismissed, no further order is required to be passed in the contemp t petition, th u s, the same is dismissed as suc h .

¶65

Pending misc. application(s), i f any, also stand disposed of.

¶66

(AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE

¶67

September 02, 2025 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶68

PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.09.12 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether defendant No.1 had duly proved possession since 1976 of the land comprised in Khatauni No.255, mustil No.38//Killa No.1(8-0), 2(8-0), 3/1/7-4, 9/7-12, 10/8-0, such that his hostile and continued possession ought to have been protected.¶13
The court held
The case set up by defendant No.1 of exclusive possession of the entire suit property fails flat: plaintiff No.2 stood recorded in possession of the suit property as per Ex.P7 except the land comprised in Khatauni Nos.255, 256 and 257, with defendant No.1 shown in possession of Khasra Nos.38/1(8-0), 2(8-0), 3/1(7-0) and 10(8-0) totalling 31 kanals 4 marlas, Gurmail Singh in Khasra No.38/9(7-12) and Shingara Singh in Khasra No.37/15(8-0).ratio¶17
2.
Whether both the courts below failed to render any finding on whether plaintiff No.2 was Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh, and whether in the absence of such finding the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction was wrongly decreed.¶13
The court held
Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 duly proved that the property was owned by plaintiff No.1-Samadh with its affairs being managed by plaintiff No.2, establishing plaintiff No.2's status as Mohatmim of plaintiff No.1-Samadh.ratio¶16
3.
Whether the report of the local commissioner was wrongly discarded by both the courts below.¶13
The court held
The courts below rightly did not take the local commissioner's report into consideration, as he neither consulted the revenue record nor took help of any revenue official; exclusive possession of defendant No.1 cannot be established merely from the fact that when the local commissioner reached the spot, his son started cutting the crop standing on the suit property.ratio¶17
4.
Whether questions of law are required to be framed in a regular second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.¶18
The court held
In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs Vs. Chandrika (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs, questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.ratio¶18

Gurmeeta v. Smadh Baba JAGROOP0 Dass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmeeta v. Smadh Baba JAGROOP0 Dass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manpreet Kaur Vs Darshanjit Kaur and Others

Bhag Singh and Others Vs Pala Ram and Others

Promila and Others Vs Tarsem and Others

Sukhchain Dass Vs Surjeet Dass and Anr.

Prem Chand Vs Jogindro Devi

(O&M) Mohinder Singh Vs Sadhu Singh