Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1957 Page 1 of about 28 results (0.025 seconds)

Oct 18 1957 (HC)

Nand Singh Vs. Sewa Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-18-1957

Reported in : AIR1959P& H609

ordera.n. grover, j. 1. one buta singh was an occupancy tenant of one half of 17 bighas and 6 biswas of land situate in village phul. the occupancy rights in the remaining half portion belonged to mst. karmo. on 18th jeth 2001 bk. buta singh created a mortgage with possession of his share of the occupancy rights in favour of sewa singh. the mortgage is said to have been created by means of pawisht a document which admittedly was not registered. a mutation, however, was effected, date of the same being 10th jeth 2002 bk. the entry with, regard to the mortgage was also incorporated subsequently in the jamabandi of the year 2002-2003 (exhibit p-a. ).2. before the mutation took place in favour of sewn singh, buta singh had died, and nandsingh, bachan singh and harpal singh had succeeded to his occupancy rights and were entered as such in the revenue records. thus sewa singh and joginder singh to whom mst. karmo had made a gift out of her share, came to be recorded in joint possession of the land. it is alleged by sewa singh that about the time of numani in the year 2005 bk. joginder singh and others illegally dispossessed sewa singh from his one half share in the land.3. sewa singh instituted a suit for recovery of possession on the allegation that he was a mortgagee with possession and that he had been forcibly and illegally evicted. the suit was resisted mainly by nand singh. on 20-9-1951, the court of first instance decreed the suit. in appeal the learned district judge of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 24 1957 (HC)

Ganda Singh and ors. Vs. Ram NaraIn Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-24-1957

Reported in : AIR1959P& H147

g.d. khosla, j.1. this reference to the full bench by a division bench of the erstwhile pepsu high court has arisen in the following manner. one mal singh died leaving 150 bighas of agricultural land. he had inherited this land from his father gurmukh singh who had obtained it by means of a gift from his father-in-law, samund singh. some of this area was under mortgage and a small portion was unencumbered. an area, 131 bighas 8 biswas, was mortgaged with ram narain singh who is the respondent before us. another plot of 5 bighas was mortgaged in favour of somebody else and the rest was unencumbered. mal singh left no male issue and the state began to take steps for the escheat of the property.thereupon the collaterals of the donor, samund singh, intervened. they are the plaintiffs appellants before us. their case was that the property after the ending of mal singh's line had reverted to them because they represented the line of the donor. gujjar singh who was a first cousin of mal singh and therefore his heir raised no objection to the claim made by samund singh's collaterals. the escheat proceedings were stopped and the question of entering a mutation of this land was taken up by the revenue authorities. smt. khemi, the daughter of mal singh, now raised an objection, but the mutation was entered in favour of the appellants.they obtained possession of the unencumbered land and redeemed the 5 bighas of land which was mortgaged to persons other than those who are parties to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1957 (HC)

Sardar Kapur Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-04-1957

Reported in : AIR1957P& H173

kapur, j.1. in these two cases (civil miscellaneous no. 194-c of 1935 and supreme court appeal no. 2 of 1956) certain questions of law have been referred to a full bench by two different division benches. in civil miscellaneous no. 194-c of 1955 the following question has been referred--'when the high court refuses to issue a writ under article 226 of the constitution, does the order of the high court amount to a judgment or a final order within the meaning of article 133 of the constitution and does an appeal lie to the supreme court under article 133(1)(a) or 133(1)(b) provided the subject-matter of the appeal is worth rs. 20,000/- or more?'in the supreme court appeal no. 2 of 1956 the two questions which have been referred are--(1) whether an order passed by this court de-clining to issue a writ under article 226 of the constitution can be regarded as a judgment, decree or final order within the, meaning of article 133? and(2) whether the proceeding in which such an order is passed can be regarded as a civil proceeding within the meaning of the said article. the former case arises out of proceedings before the deputy custodian-general before whom the disputants were amar kaur, widow of harnam singh, and parkash kaur, widow of a pre-deceased son of harnam singh. in the jamabandi of chak no. 95-12l in tehsil and district montgomery (now west pakistan) both these widows were recorded as proprietors of land in equal shares. after the partition amar kaur made an application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1957 (HC)

S. Anup Singh S. Amrik Singh Vs. Sardarni Harbans Kaur

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-25-1957

Reported in : AIR1958P& H116

tek chand, j.1. this appeal is a regular first appeal instituted by the defendant from the judgment and decree of the district judge, patiala, dated 17-4-1954, passed in a suit for possession relating to three properties. plaintiff's claim for the possession of 33 bighas and 5 biswas of land comprising of a garden was decreed and her suit as to the rest of the properties was dismissed. the parties were directed to bear their own costs. the defendant has instituted this appeal contending that the decree for the possession of the garden passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent should be set aside. the plaintiff has filed cross-objections praying that her suit should also have been decreed with regard to the land in village khera and the house known as amarinder hall, patiala. the plaintiff sardarni harbans kaur is the stepmother of defendant s. anup singh. the pedigree-table of the family is reproduced below:-- s. amar singh __________________________________|_______________________________________ | | | |sardarni harbans = amrik singh (died on amarjit singh amarinderjit singh amardeep singhkaur (plantiff) 19th december 1930) (dead). widow of |s. amrik singh s. anup singh (defendant).2. there were three properties which were the subject matter of the suit:1. agricultural land measuring 362 bighas and 5 biswas in village khera:2. a house known as amarinder hail, patiala; and3. land consisting of garden measuring 33 bighas and 5 biswas.3. in her plaint, sardarni harbans kaur .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 1957 (HC)

Maqbool Ahmad Allah Rakha and anr. Vs. the Custodian of Evacuee Proper ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-14-1957

Reported in : AIR1958P& H78

falshaw, j.1. the facts giving rise to those five-connected petitions (civil writs nos. 33-d to 37-d of 1956) under article 226 of the constitution filed by maqbul ahmad and pirdos ahmad are as follows. one manzur ahmad was the owner of a half share of five separate pieces of land situated at the-village of pimbora in the district of muzaffar-nagar (u.p.) and on the 5th of. december, 1954-five notices were issued under section 7 of the administration of evacuee property act by the additional assistant custodian (rural), muzaffarna-gar, for declaring manzur ahmad's shares in these properties to be evacuee property on the ground-that he had migrated to pakistan. the notices were contested by maqbul ahmad the brother and firdoz ahmad the son of manzur ahmad on the ground that manzur ahmad had not migrated to pakistan but had been killed in the disturbances at patiala in 1947.2. the cases were decided together by the additional assistant custodian, muzaffarnagar, by his order dated the 12th of january, 1955. apparently no efforts had been made in the meantime by the father and brother of the alleged evacuee to have any mutation effected in the revenue re-cords regarding his share of the property, and the evidence produced by them in an effort to prove that manzur ahmad had been killed in patiala in 1947 was not believed, and manzur ahmad was accordingly declared to be an evacuee and his shares in the properties to be evacuee property. the petitioners' appeal against this order .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 1957 (HC)

Ramlal and ors. Vs. Chetu Alias Chet Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-13-1957

Reported in : AIR1958P& H335

a.n. bhandari, c.j.1. this appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent raises the question whether the possession of the appellant has ripened into ownership by efflux of time.2. it appears that chetu and telu, who were co-owners in a certain plot of land situate in the erstwhile state of patiala mortgaged the property with one raja ram for a sum of rs. 433/8/ . on the 4th baisakh 1977 bk. daulat ram and narain das sons of raja ram mortgagee sold their mortgagee rights to chhaju, father of ram chand defendant no. 2. on the 7th chet 1982 bk. chetu created a further mortgage in favour of benarsi das and others defendant no. 3.it appears that in the year 1987 bk. one harnama, father of ram lal and others, hereinafter referred to as the defendants entered upon the land as a tenant of ram chand. on the death of telu, chetu acquired the proprietary rights which had vested in his co-owner and in the year 2002, he paid off both the first and the second mortgagees and redeemed the mortgages. he endeavoured to obtain possession of the property but having failed to achieve his object he brought the suit for possession out of which this appeal has arisen.the mortgagees, defendants nos. 2 and 3, accepted the plaintiff's claim but the defendants who were in actual physical possession of the land resisted the suit. they stated that they had been in actual physical possession of the property for a period exceeding 25 years and that the adverse possession of the land maintained for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 1957 (HC)

Balmukand L. Hira Nand Vs. Pindi Dass (Deceased) and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-14-1957

Reported in : AIR1958P& H267

1. the facts giving rise to this first appeal are as under: one balmukand, a resident of batala, filed a suit against pindi das, haveli ram, khem chand and sat pal sons of nihal chand, residents of batala, on 12-2-1947, far possession by specific performance of a contract of sale of 3/20 share of land measuring 13 kanals 1 marla situate in mauza faizpur (included in batala) on payment of rs. 9,687/8/-. the plaintiff alleged that all the four defendants were real brothers and constituted a joint hindu family of which pindi das defendant was the karkun and manager, that defendant no. 1 as manager was fully competent to make any alienation of the property of the family, that the property in suit was the property of the joint hindu family, that on 1-10-1945 defendant no. 1 as manager of the family entered into a transaction of sale of the property in dispute with the plaintiff at the rate of rs. 250/- per marla and received a sum of rs. 100/- as earnest money from the plaintiff, that the defendants in spite of being repeatedly asked to receive the remaining sale money from the plaintiff and execute and complete a sale deed in respect of the land in suit had failed to perform their parti of the contract, that the price of the land in question by calculation came to rs. 9,787/8/-, and that after deducting rs. 100/- paid as earnest money the plaintiff was entitled to have specific performance of the contract on payment of rs. 9,687/8/-.defendant no. 1 filed one written statement and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 1957 (HC)

Kasturi Rao and anr. Vs. Mehar Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-26-1957

Reported in : AIR1959P& H350

g.d. khosla, j.1. this order will deal with the two execution appeals nos. 6(p) and 7(p) of 1956, in both of which the same point is involved.2. the facts are that the appellant-decree-holders obtained two decrees for possession of land and the-recovery of sums of money from the court of the sub-judge, second class, sangrur. the decrees were passed on 10-5-1948. at that time the land being, the subject-matter of the decree was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the sub-judge, sangrur. subsequently, the territorial jurisdiction of the sangrur court was altered and the land now lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the sub judge, sunam. after this change two execution applications were filed by the decree-holders in the court of the sub judge, sunam. an objection was taken that the execution applications could not be entertained by the sub judge, sunam. this objection was upheld and the two applications for execution were dismissed. the learned district judge of sangrur upheld this decision on appeal. the decree-holders have come up in second appeal to this court.(3) the question, therefore, for decision is whether these execution applications should have been filed in the court of the sub judge, sangrur, or the sub judge, sunam, was competent to entertain them. for the decision of this case it is necessary to consider the provisions of sections 37, 38, 39 and 150, civil procedure code. the relevant portions of these sections may be quoted.'section 37. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 1957 (HC)

Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Ladli Parshad Jaiswal and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-18-1957

Reported in : AIR1958P& H190

tek chand, j. 1. this is letters patent appeal presented by the karnal distillery co. ltd., shanti farshad, madan lal, and shrimati suraj mukhi, defendants, from the judgment of learned single judge allowing regular second appeal no. 211 of 1954, granting reliefs to the plaintiff ladli parshad jaiswal in the terms mentioned in that judgment, and reversing the judgment passed by the district judge, karnal, and partially restoring that of the senior subordinate judge. the pedigree-table reproduced below indicates the relationship of the parties inter se: kishori lal _____________________|_________________________ | | | durga parshad ladli parshad shanti parshad | plantiff defendant 2 | | shrimati suraj mukhi defendant 5 ___________|____________ | | sajan lal madan lal deft. 3 def t.42. kishori lal, father of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 and grandfather of defendants 3 and 4, had started in 1900 the business of distillation of alcoholic beverages under the name and style of 'kishori lal and sons'. it was a joint hindu family business the members ofwhich were kishori lal, his sons and grandsons. the same business was conducted also under the name of 'karnal distillery, karnal'. in 1928 kishori lal died leaving a widow and three sons. durga parshad was the eldest, ladli parshad comes next and shanti parshad is the youngest. on the death of kishori lal in 1928 the joint family business was continued by the sons with durga parshad as the karta of the joint family. in 1934 durga .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 20 1957 (HC)

Ram Lubhaya Bhatia Vs. Divisional Supdt. Northern Railway, New Delhi

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-20-1957

Reported in : AIR1958P& H153

a.n. grover, j.1. the question involved in this petition for revision which has been referred to a division bench is whether there is any right of appeal-under section 17(1) of the payment of wages act, 1936 (hereinafter called the act) when an application under section 15 has been dismissed by the-authority constituted under the act.2. briefly the facts are that the petitioner is a sation master in the employ of northern railway. he filed two applications under the-act. his allegations were that since 13-1-1954, he had not been paid his salary in full and that unauthorised deductions had been made therefrom by withholding increments in contravention of the act.he claimed a refund of rs. 1.130/- and also compensation at ten times the amounts deducted by the railway administration. the position taken by the respondent was that the petitioner had been under suspension and had been paid half pay as allowance during the period of suspension in accordance with the rules. it was further stated that the authority had no jurisdiction to go into the legality of the suspension of the petitioner.3. on 10-3-1955, the authority dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner was being paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and was not entitled to full wages. against this order the petitioner preferred an appeal to the district judge of sangrur. by his order dated 23-5-1955, the district judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that no direction had been .....

Tag this Judgment!


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