Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1960 Page 1 of about 25 results (0.033 seconds)

Feb 09 1960 (HC)

Kirori Jugal Kishore and anr. Vs. Man Bai W/O Sheo Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-09-1960

Reported in : AIR1960P& H485

dua, j.(1) kallu singh, son of mehr singh, chauhan rajput of village bat tahera in tehsil jhajjar, district rohtak, was the last male holder of the land now in dispute. he died sometime in 1920 and on his death smt. makhman, his widow succeeded to his estate. on 1st august, 1930 shiv nath lambardar made a report to the patwari that smt. makhman, widow of kallu singh, had died without leaving any issue and that jiwan singh, son of shiv singh, was in possession of the estate left by her. it was, in the circumstances, suggested that jiwan singh's name be entered in place of the lady. after making a reference to the pedigree table it was reported that no heirs of the deceased were traceable. the proceedings of 2nd september 1930 before the revenue officer show that smt. makhma had by means of interrogatories admitted jiwan singh to be her heir and raised no objection to her name being removed form the revenue papers.the pedigree-table of the settlement of 1879 was then referred to and then mutation was ordered to be entered in favour of shamilat pana gahtoli in proportion to khewat money on account of her karewa marriage. i may here not that the original report by shiv nath lambardar that smt. makhman had died was obviously incorrect and what was perhaps intended to be stated was that she had remarried.(2) on 28th april 1944 jiwan singh attempted to have the mutation entered exclusively in his own name, but he did not succeed and on 14th september 1944 mutation in his personal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 26 1960 (HC)

Charan Singh Harnam Singh and anr. Vs. Gurdial Singh Harnam Singh and ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-26-1960

Reported in : AIR1961P& H301

ordermehar singh, j. 1. the litigation between the parties concerns the property left by harnam singh deceased. the property is both agricultural land and house or other property than agricultural land. he died on march 29, 1951. he had four sons named charan singh, mansa singh, gurdial singh and gurbakhsh singh. gurbakhsh singh died some six or seven years earlier to his death, leaving his widow mohinder kaur.on the death of harnam singh the persons claiming his inheritance were his three sons, namely, charan singh, mansa singh and gurdial singh, then living, and mohinder kaur as the widow of his predeceased son gurbakhsh singh. the agricultural land, however, has been mutated by the authorities in the name of the three surviving sons of harnam singh deceased, leaving out mohinder kaur, the widow of his predeceased son gurbakhsh singh.2. on april 29, 1953, mohinder kaur instituted a suit for possession of one-fourth share of the agricultural land, described by her in detail in her plaint, left by her deceased father-in-law, on the ground that as the widow of the predeceased son she is entitled to that share.3. the suit was defended by charan singh and mansa singh on the grounds (a) that mohinder kaur has re-married gurdial singh, the brother of her deceased husband, by karewa, and (b) that, in any case, she has been living an unchaste life, so that she has forfeited her right to inherit to her father-in-law as a widow of his predeceased son. gurdial singh, the brother of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 1960 (HC)

Mangal Singh and ors. Vs. Manphul Singh Jaimal Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-07-1960

Reported in : AIR1961P& H251

1. this is a plaintiffs second appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned district judge, ambala, reversing the decree of the trial court and dismissing their suit 2. according to the plaintiffs-appellants, the land in suit was owned by one hira singh who is alleged to have died round about 1942 and on whose death manphul singh defendant founding his claim on the basis of an alleged will by hira singh in his favour got the mutation of the said land sanctioned in his own name. the plaintiffs claiming to be the daughter's sons of punjab singh, a collateral of hira singh deceased, instituted the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for possession of the land in question. being cognates of hira singh deceased, the plaintiffs claim title to the inheritance of the property left by the deceased and it is asserted that the defendant is in no way related to the last male holder.3. the defendant in his written statement admitted that the land in question was owned by hira singh, who was murdered during the fateful days of partition of the country in 1947 but he propounded a will in his favour said to have been validly made by hira singh. he also denied that the plaintiffs were the daughter's sons of punjab singh and even punjab singh's collateral relationship with hira singh was controverted.time bar was also set up as a defence and it was further pleaded that he had got some of the suit land redeemed with the result that if the plaintiffs were to be held entitled to a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 1960 (HC)

Kanshi Ram and ors. Vs. Kesho Ram Bahna and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-08-1960

Reported in : AIR1961P& H299

shamsher bahadur, j.1. the sole question for determination in the appeal is whether the sale of the land in suit in favour of the appellants is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens?2. the last male owner of the suit property was kundan lal on whose death, his daughter ishwar devi succeeded to it. on ishwar devi's death on 4th of june, 1950, the question of succession arose once again. mst. karti and mst. muni appeared before the revenue assistant and stated that they wanted the mutation to be in the name of sunder, husband of ishwar devi. the statement was made on 12th of september, 1950, and after verifying from the pedigree-table, the revenue assistant attested the mutation in favour of sunder on 12th of april, 1951. sunder remained in possession of the land in suit till he sold it to the present appellants, kanshi ram and hari ram, on 31st of january, 1956, for a sum of rs. 3,500/- under a registered sale deed.3. before the sale took place, a suit was brought by karti and muni on 27th of january 1956 against sunder and one kesho ram, a mortgagee from sunder, for possession of the suit land on the ground that they were the heirs and not sunder, being the daughters of collaterals of kundan lal. that suit was decreed and the appeal preferred by sunder was dismissed. in pursuance of the decree obtained by karti and muni, an execution application was made on 30th of august, 1956 against tha judgment-debtors, sunder and kesho ram. kanshi ram and hari ram, who claimed to be in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 1960 (HC)

Kanhiya Shanker and ors. Vs. Mohabata Sedhu and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-23-1960

Reported in : AIR1960P& H494

tek chand j.(1) in order to understand the facts of this case, the following pedigree-table will be helpful: naula ____________________________________|_________________________________________ | | | jisukh khushala nopa | | | _____|_______ sobha rura | | | _________________________ mohan pema purna | | | |___________ ______________| jeon godha sedhu | | | | | d. s. p. | ramdhran lalu sedhla sheola onkar= shankar | | | | sheokaran mohabata ludhia= mst.darkali | (defendant no.2) (plaintiff) mst.dhakli (widow) | (widow) (remarried) | __________________________| | | | isher kannaya bakhtawar (defendants no.1.)(2) mohabata plaintiff-respondent had instituted a suit for joint possession of agricultural land against isher, kanhaya and bakhtawar sons of shankar, who were collectively designated as defendants no. 1. the plaintiff alleged that he was a co-owner in equal share in the several parcels of suit-land along with defendants no. 1. the plaintiff alleged that 40 years before the last settlement of 1962 bk. the ancestors of the plaintiff had entrusted their share of the land in village antari to the ancestors of defendants no. 1 on the condition that on their return to the village they would take back its possession. they left for village manota which is said to be at a distance of 8 or 10 miles from village antari. (3) defendants no. 1 denied the above allegations of the plaintiff. sheokaran, who represented the third branch, was impleaded as defendant no. 2. as will appear .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1960 (HC)

Harcharan Singh Vs. Isher Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-06-1960

Reported in : AIR1961P& H55

dulat, j. 1. harnama, a jat of village lalheri in the ludhiana district, owning a small area of agricultural land and also a house, made a will concerning his property on the 28th of may, 1946 in favour of his sister's son harcharan singh. harnama died on the 2nd of june, 1946, and a dispute arose about the property, the claimants being nand singh, a fifth-degree collateral of harnama who claimed as his heir, and harcharan singh who claimed under the will. the revenue authorities entered mutation in favour of nand singh on the 19th of july, 1946, and the revenue officer, after considering the parties' claims, sanctioned mutation in favour of nand singh on the 28th of january, 1948. on the 28th of march, 1950 nand singh made a gift of this property to his own sister's sons -- ishar singh and others -- and the revenue authorities sanctioned mutation in their favour on the 11th of may, 1950, nand singh then died and after his death harcharan singh applied for probate of the will in his favour and obtained a grant on the 24th of may1951. on the 3rd of october, 1951 he filed a suit in the civil court for the possession of the property, the defendants, of course, being ishar singh and others, apart from a mortgagee of the land. the main defence was that the suit property was ancestral qua nand singh and the will, therefore, made by harnama was invalid under the rule or custom applicable to the parties. in reply to this, the plaintiff claimed that such a defence was notopen to ishar .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1960 (HC)

Bai Chander Mani D/O Hari Ram Sanghi Vs. Bhagirath S/O Sewa Ram Ahir a ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-01-1960

Reported in : AIR1961P& H296

gurdev singh, j.1. on the 10th of june, 1958, the appellant bai chander mani brought a suit for pre-empting the sale of agricultural land situate in village murari pur, district narnaul, by her father hari ram and her mother kushalya devi for rs. 4,000/- in favour of bhagirath defendant no. 1 vide sale deed dated the 30th of may, 1957. she claimed right of pre-emption on the plea that she was the daughter of the vendors. she disputed the sale price and prayed for a decree in her favour on payment of rs. 1,800/- only, on the allegation that the remaining sale consideration has been fictitiously entered in the sale-deed.the vendee, while contesting the suit, denied the plaintiffs preferential right of pre-emption and also asserted that the entire consideration of rs. 4,000/- mentioned in the sale deed had been paid nor was it the market price of the properly in dispute. he further pleaded that the suit was barred by time. on trial of the relevant issues the learned subordinate judge found that the consideration of the sale was only rs. 3,700/- and this was also the market price of the property in suit. he, however, dismissed the suit as barred by time.2. the plaintiff went up in appeal to the learned district judge. the question of limitation alone was agitated before that court but the learned district judge agreed with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff's suit had been rightly dismissed as barred by time. it is against this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1960 (HC)

Charanji Lal Jagannath Arora and anr. Vs. Smt. Inder Devi and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-12-1960

Reported in : AIR1961P& H466

gurdev singh, j. 1. this is an appeal under clause 10 of letters patent against the judgment of a learned single judge, dated 25th may, 1959, in regular second appeal no. 1152 of 1957. to appreciate the points in controversy between the parties, it is necessary to advert to the facts of the case which, in brief, are as follows:- 2. ganesh das was the head of the family to which the parties belong. he had two sons, behari lal, defendant no. 4, and jagan nath, father of choranji lal, brij lal and kishan. chand (defendants 1 to 3). shrimati inder devi plaintiff-respondent is the wife of behari lal. they had a son jagdish chander who died in october, 1942. 3. before the partition of the country, the parties were residing in district montgomery, now in west pakistan. ganesh das held 184 acres of land in village malka hans in district montgomery. on 27th february, 1941, he excuted a gift of 531 kanals (65 acres) out of his landed property in favour of his grandson, jagdish chandar, by means of the registered deed, exhibit p-8, subsequently, he made gift of some other portions of his landed property to his remaining grandsons, namely, the three appellants, kishan chand, brij lal and choranji lal. 4. on the death of jagdish chandar somewhere in october, 1942, the property which he had obtained under the gift deed, ex. p-8, was taken possession of by his grandfather ganesh das, and he got the same mutated in his name on 12th october, 1942, as evidenced by the copy of the mutation, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 1960 (HC)

Rup Ram Dhan Singh Vs. Munshi Chhilu

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-15-1960

Reported in : AIR1960P& H480

dua, j. (1) this appeal is directed against the decision of the learned subordinate judge, 1st class, rohtak, passing a decree for possession of the land in dispute by redemption on the condition that the plaintiff deposits in the court a sum of rs. 6,000/- payable to the defendant, on or before 18-12-1958, failing which his suit would stand dismissed with costs.(2) it is common ground that on 3-2-1956 a mortgagee was effected on the land in suit by the plaintiff in favour of rup ram defendant-appellant for a sum of rs. 6,000/-. this mortgage was with possession, and interest and profit from the land were to counterbalance each other. its mutation was sanctioned on4-4-1956. no period having been prescribed, it was open to the mortgagor to redeem it at any time. on 17-3-1958 the mortgagor put in an application for redemption in the court of the revenue assistant, rohtak, under the redemption of mortgages act, 1913, and deposited the entire mortgage money due in the treasury. notice obviously went to the mortgagee who resisted the claim on various grounds, including absence of jurisdiction in the assistant collector, rohtak, on the ground that the montage money was more than rs. 5,000/-. it appears that on 15-4-1958 the collector, rohtak, disallowed the application of the mortgagor which the observation that the applicant could, if so advised, seek his remedy in the civil court. having failed to get redemption in the office of the collector, the mortgagor instituted the present .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 1960 (HC)

Smt. Chando Devi Vs. Municipal Committee, Delhi

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-16-1960

Reported in : AIR1961P& H424

chopra, j. 1. this is an appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent against an order of my lord the chief jus-lice setting aside the abatement of an appeal filed by the municipal committee of delhi, the respondent.2. briefly stated the facts are: on 6th july, 1946, mst. inder devi brought a suit for an injunction restraining the municipal committee, delhi, the defendant-respondent, from raising a certain construction and thereby obstructing the plaintiff's passage to and from a building which belonged to her. the suit was decreed by the trial court and the appeal filed by the municipal committee was dismissed by the senior subordinate judge, delhi, on 16th june, 1950.when the second appeal preferred by the municipal committee came up for hearing in this court on 15th december, 1953, it transpired that mst. inder devi, the sole respondent in the appeal, had died on 31st december, 1951. the appeal was accordingly dismissed as having abated. the same day, viz. on 15th december, 1953, the municipal committee submitted an application for setting aside the abatement under order xxii, rule 9, civil procedure code, and for impleading mst. chando devi, daughter of the deceased, as her legal representative.the application was opposed by chando devi stating that the municipal authorities were aware of the death of mst. inder devi, as they had made a note of her death in the relevant registers on 3rd january, 1952, mutation of the building which belonged to inder devi was sanctioned in .....

Tag this Judgment!


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