Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1952 Page 1 of about 42 results (0.041 seconds)

Jul 23 1952 (HC)

Mst. Jiwi W/O. Bhan Singh Jat Vs. Budh Singh Maya Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-23-1952

Reported in : AIR1954P& H139

kapur, j.1. this is an appeal against a judgment of palshaw j. dated 8-10-1948 affirming the judgment and decree of the senior subordinate judge who had confirmed the decree of the trial court decreeing the plaintiff's suit.2. budh singh had mortgaged his land in dispute to fauja singh for rs. 800/- and the interest on this mortgage amount was rs. 1-4-0 per cent, per mensem. budh singh also owed rs. 160/- to karnail singh to whom also the land in dispute was mortgaged. on 13-7-1943 budh singh sold the land in dispute to mst. jiwi, mother of fauja singh, for a sum of rs. 1,500/-. the consideration was as follows:1. due to fauja singh, previous mortgagee rs. 962/-. 2. due to karnail singh rs. 160a 3. for the deed of sale and other registration expenses rs. 50/-. 4. to be received at the time of registration rs. 328/-. 3. rs. 328/- were paid before the registrar.4. mutation of this sale was rejected by the assistant collector on 18-5-1944 on the ground that the alienee was a creditor within the meaning of section 3-a of the land alienation act and the transaction was a contravention of that section. before the assistant collector fauja singh and khemi, mother of budh singh, both agreed that the mutation be rejected. an appeal was taken to the collector but on 28-3-1944 it was dismissed on the ground that both parties had agreed to the rejection of the mutation.5. mst. jiwi brought a suit for possession on 25-2-1945 arid the defence was that the transaction was in contravention .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 1952 (HC)

Kanwar Moti Singh Vs. Mst. Charjo

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-16-1952

Reported in : AIR1953P& H264

kapur, j. 1. this judgment, will dispose of two appeals, r. f. a. no. 173 of 1948 and r. f. a. no. 53 of 1949. r. f. a. no. 173 of 1948 is brought by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by mr. h. c. mittal, senior subordinate judge, dharamsala, dated 1-10-1948 decreeing the plaintiff's suit and r. f. a. no. 55 of 1949 is brought by the plaintiff to vary the decree. 2. in order to understand the facts of the case it will perhaps be advantageous to give a short pedigree-table of the parties: bachittar singh __________________________________|______________________________ | | | | | sahib singh gian singh sanghat singh amar singh kehr singh. | died on | 15.9.41 moti singh charjo widow plaintiff.3. on 6-4-1940 there was a partition of the estate of bachittar singh and separate possession was taken of their respective shares by sangat singh, amar singh and kehr singh. the property which fell to the share of moti singh and gian singh was allowed to remain joint. in mutation, ex. d. 5, page 82 of the printed paper boob, it was shown that land with 'kothi' situate at mahal palampur would belong exclusively to moti singh cosharer. land in tika thumb a, dakhli salon fell to the share of moti singh and gian singh in equal shares. similarly, lands situated in other villages fell to the share of other brothers. on 14-8-1941, by a registered sale deed, ex. p. 12, gian singh purported to se!l for a sum of rs. 22,000/- the whole of his land, mortgagee rights, tea and rice .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1952 (HC)

Dwarka Das L. Shambhu Nath and ors. Vs. Rangi Lal Munna Lal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-09-1952

Reported in : AIR1953P& H289

kapur, j.1. this is an appeal brought by the plaintiffs against a judgment and decree of mr. madan mohan singh, subordinate judge, sonepat, dated 20-1-1949 being a preliminary decree for partition but not giving to the plaintiffs the relief that they wanted in their plaint.2. ghasita mal sold 1 bigha 7 biswas kham ofland on 23-8-1930 to various persons for a sum ofrs. 2,000/-. in the deed of sale which was registered and was in regard to khasra no. 3942/2 theshares of the vendees were as follows-dwarka dass --6 sharespanna lal and rangi lal --2 shares each.sabha chand --6 shares.this land was situated within the municipal limits of sonepat town. sobha chand on 16-6-1933 sold his six shares to sangat bai for a sum of rs. 500/-by means of a registered deed ex p. 3. as the vendees were unable to get possession of the land they on 24-8-1936 instituted a suit for possession against the vendor ghasita mal and one ibrahim, brij kishore and kishori lal, the land in dispute which had been sold by ghasita mal under the registered sale deed dated 23-8-1930 consisted of khasra nos. 6615/6524 ( 15 biswas) and 6616/6524 (10 biswas): total 1 bigha 5 biswas. the suit for possession was dismissed on the ground that ghasita mal had no saleable interest, but a decree for rs. 2,000/- was passed as damage against ghasita mal. this is ex p. 4 at page 31 of the paper book. ghasita mal then took an appeal to the district judge where the present plaintiffs were respondents, and there they gave up .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 1952 (HC)

Mst. Jeo Vs. Ujagar Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-08-1952

Reported in : AIR1953P& H177

kapur, j. 1. this is a second appeal against a judgment and decree of the learned district judge amritsar, affirming the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit. 2. the relationship of the parties will be clear from the pedigree-table which is as follows: gangu | _______________________________|_____________________________ | | akki jagta | | sanwalia parana | | bantu milkha sing (lakha singh) | | jai sing fateh singh | | mehr singh ranu | ___________|__________ gulab sing | | | jaimal sing dhanna singh mt. kishan kaur=jawala | | singh sant singh | | | ujagar singh (deft.) respdt. | | |___________________________________________________ | | (last male holder) mt. jio sahib singh (plff. appellant). (mt. nihal kaur) widowthe penultimate holder of the property was jawala singh who died on 24-11-1917. he was succeeded by his sou sahib singh who died in december 1918. nihal kaur, the widow of sahib singh, remarried soon after and mutation was entered in the name of kishan kaur, the widow of jawala singh and the mother of the last holder, she died on 12-11-1942, and in 1943 mutation was entered in the name of mst. jio, the sister of sahib singh. on appeal being taken to the collector the mutation was ordered to be entered in the names of collaterals who are connected with the last male-holder in the 9th degree. on 11-6-1945 mst. jio brought the present suit alleging that she was governed by special custom by which amongst bheniwal jats of the amritsar tahsil of amritsar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 1952 (HC)

Sant Ram and ors. Vs. Sital Das

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-30-1952

Reported in : AIR1952P& H301

harnam singh, j.1. sant ram, mehnga singh, ishar das and lachhman das defendantsin civil suit no. 131 of 1947 appeal from thedecree passed in that suit on the 31st of may 1948.2. to appreciate the contentions that have been raised in this appeal, it would be necessary to give a short narrative of the material facts in their chronological order. kishore das, who died on the 4th of april, 1945, was the mahant of the thakardwara at jamsher belonging to the ram kabir sect of the bairagi sampardai. the thakardwara at jamsher is connected with the institution known as 'baba ram kabir ka dwara', the 'gaddi' of which is at jaipur. on the 19th of july, 1943 mahant sadhu ram and 'shri' hira das instituted civil suit no. 966/816 of 1943 'inter alia' for the removal of kishore das from the gaddi of the that suit, the parties compromised the dispute between them and in accordance with that compromise shri harbans rai nayar, subordinate judge 3rd class, jullundur, passed the decree on the 26th of october, 1944, kishore das, however, appealed from the order recording the compromise in the court of the district judge at jullundur. during the pendency of that appeal, kishore das died on the 4th of april, 1945, and ishar das defendant was brought on the record as the legal representative of kishore das on the 18th of may, 1945. kishore das and ishar das were, by blood relationship, uncle and nephew and in the registered will, exhibit d. 4, made by kishore das on the 31st of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 20 1952 (HC)

Manbhari and ors. Vs. Maktul and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-20-1952

Reported in : AIR1953P& H268

kapur, j. 1. this is a defendants' appeal against a judgment and decree of mr. gian das jain, subordinate judge 1st class, panipat, dated 22-3-1948 decreeing the plaintiff's suit in regard to a portion of his claim.2. in order to understand the case it is necessary to give the following pedigree-table: _______________________________________ | | ram dhan rupo (sister) | moti __________________________________________|______________ | | | | mst. indo=shahzada mst. rajo kanhaya shibbi =mst. singharo | (deasased) sarup (vendor) wife singber | makrul (plaintiffsarup defendant no. 8 by a deed of mortgage dated 22-3-1927 mortgaged the land in dispute to shiv lal 'alias' shibba for rs. 5,000/-. mutation of this was sanctioned on 11-9-1927. by a registered sale deed, dated 12-4-1929 sarup soldthe land and half share in the house and an enclosure to the same shiv lal for rs. 11,000/-and mutation was sanctioned on 1-5-1929. shibba died and his legal representatives are defendants no. 1 to 7. on 7-5-1946 maktul, a minor son of sarup, brought a suit for declaration that the mortgage and the sale by sarup were without consideration and necessity and would not therefore bind his reversionary rights. he alleged that he was governed by custom, that the property was ancestral and therefore he was entitled to challenge the sale.the ancestral nature of the land was contested by defendants nos. 1 to 7 and it was also pleaded that the suit was barred by time and the alienations were for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1952 (HC)

Priman and anr. Vs. Hari Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-08-1952

Reported in : AIR1953P& H125

orderweston, c.j.1. this civil revision raises the question whether under section 77, punjab tenancy act, jurisdiction exists in a civil or in a revenue court in respect of the particular suit.2. the facts shortly are these. one ram dayal and others who are defendants nos. 8 to 14 in the present suit were occupancy tenants of the suit land situate in village hanoli khurd in the hissar district. hari singh and others who are defendants nos. 1 to 7 in the suit are the landlords of that land. defendants nos. 8 to 14 left the land a considerable number of years ago, after which the plaintiffs had been in possession. the plaintiffs claimed that they had become occupancy tenants of the suit land by virtue of exchange of other land with defendants nos. 8 to 14. the landlords denied that there had been any such exchange with their consent and while admitting the possession of the plaintiffs claimed that they were ordinary tenants.3. this was the state of affairs about the year 1943 when the landlords filed a suit in the revenue court under clause (e) of section 77(3). punjab tenancy act.4. it is convenient here to set out the material part of section 77(3), punjab tenancy act: '(3) the following suits shall be instituted in and heard and determined by revenue courts and no other courts shall take cognisance of any dispute or matter with respect to which any such suit might be instituted: provided that:(i) where in a suit cognizable by and instituted in a civil court it becomes .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 22 1952 (HC)

Bhim Singh and ors. Vs. Chandgi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-22-1952

Reported in : AIR1953P& H135

kapur, j. 1. this is an appeal against a judgment of falshaw j. dated 21-10-1948 confirming the appellate decree of the additional district judge, rohtak, dated 8-1-1947 whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.2. the facts of the case briefly are thai udmi made a gift in favour of jug lal on 17-1-1887- this jug lal was the son of udmi's brother's daughter. the following words of the deed of gift are important. after mentioning the various khatas and khasra numbers which were owned by him the donor stated :'now i have gifted the above mentioned land with all rights appurtenant thereto '(mae jumla haq haqooq)'.....and having taken theland out of my own possession i have given the possession to jug lal aforesaid and just as i was the owner in possession of the aforesaid land jug lal will also have the same rights '(jis tarah ke main malik aur qabiz arazi mazkur par tha ab isi farah so jug lal mazkur rahega)'.'in this deed of gift jug lal was described as the adopted son. udmi died in 1892 and the entire estate of udmi was mutated in the name of jug lal in 1893 which is evidenced by the mutation ex. p. 3. in the year 1929 the shamijat was partitioned and jug lal was mentioned in the revenue papers as owner of 1/5th share of the 'shamiiat' which fell to the share of this family. the learned district judge has remarked that this 1/5th share had been allotted to the descendants of jug lal in lieu of their share in the 'shamilat' which corresponded to the land gifted to him .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1952 (HC)

Lal Singh Sukha Singh and ors. Vs. Roor Singh Bela Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-17-1952

Reported in : AIR1953P& H202

kapur, j.1. this is a plaintiff's appeal against a judgment and decree of mr. jagdish narain kapur, subordinate judge 1st class, amritsar, dated 3-1-1948, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession of land and two vacant sites.2. the following pedigree-table will show the relation ship of the parties: jaspat | _______________________|_____________________________________________________________ | | | | maja singh mirza singh suraj singh paria singh | | | | _______|__________ dewan singh | __________|__________ | | | | | | amir singh wazir singh _______|_______ | sham singh ram singh | | | | | | |mehtab singh sarmukh singh gurmukh singh sukha singh | mohan singh attar singh | | | | | | | | vir singh adopted son isher singh | |sobha singh sant singh | | | | | | darshan singh(plaintiff 4) | | _______________|_____ | _______________________________________|________ | | | | | | | | ghasita singh=tabo naraini | malla singh lal singh jamial singh | | | | (plaintiff 4) | | rur singh adopted son rur singh | ishar singh | (defendant 1) (defendant 1) |_________________________________________ | | | | | bodha singh jiwan singh wasawa singh | | | ________________________|___________ | | | | inder singh(plaintiff 2) jagat singh(plaintiff 3) | | | __________________________|_______________ | | | naurang singh nidhan singh karam singh | | | adopted son nihal singh jawahar singh dayal singh | | surendra singh jowala singh | | ________________________________________________________|____ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1952 (HC)

NaraIn Singh and ors. Vs. Kapur Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-14-1952

Reported in : AIR1953P& H196

kapur, j. 1. this is an appeal brought against a judgment and decree of the additional district judge, amritsar, dated 22-7-1947 affirming the decree of the trial court by which the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.2. briefly stated, the facts are that paten singh, the last male holder, died in or about 1906 leaving 419 'kanals' 11 'marlas' of land which was inherited by his widow raj kaitr. on 3-3-1926 raj kaur adopted her daughter har kaur's son kapur singh. some of the plaintiffs including narain singh brought a declaratory suit challenging the adoption which was decided on 10-5-1928 and is ex. p-7. the defendants in that suit were raj kaur, the widow of fateh sing, kapur singh, a son of har kaur and a grandson of fateh singh, and har kaur was not a party. the suit had been brought for a declaration that the adoption of kapur singh by mt. raj kaur was invalid according to custom and would not affect thereversionary rights of the plaintiffs. the first issue was in regard to relationship, & in ex. p. 7 it has been stated that this issue was decided by an order dated 9-2-1928, evidently the finding was in favour of the then plaintiffs, but it is not clear what was the relationship claimed nor is it clear as to what exactly the finding of the judge was, excepting that he held that the plaintiffs had a right to bring the suit. it was also held in that suit that the property was not ancestral and that according to the 'riwaj-i-am' the daughters were excluded from inheritance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //