Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1972 Page 1 of about 44 results (0.057 seconds)

Sep 28 1972 (HC)

Raghbir Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Haryana and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-28-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H376

1. civil writ petition nos. 2123 and 2124 of 1972, which have been filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, are being disposed of by this judgment. the questions of law and fact raised in these two petitions are almost the same and can be conveniently dealt with together.2. the petitioners in each case were, at the relevant time, the members of the gram panchayat of village pehowa, tahsil guhla in karnal district; ragbir singh petitioner no. 1 being the sarpanch. the land mentioned in paragraph 1 of the petition in each case had vested in the gram panchayat under the punjab village common lands (regulation) act of 1953 (punjab act no. 1 of 1954) which was repealed by and then at the same time re-enacted as an act of the same name in 1961 (punjab act no. 18 of 1961). these lands had been leased out in 1950-51 by the collector under the east punjab utilisation of lands act, 1949, for a period of twenty years. the land described in civil writ no. 2124 of 1972 had been leased out to the karnal co-operative farmers society limited while the lessees of the land in the other case were some private persons. these lessees filed separate civil suits in june, 1971, against the gram sabha, pehowa for a declaration that they had become owners of the land and that the gram sabha should be restrained from interfering with their possession. the gram panchayat and the sarpanch were shown as the executive body entitled to defend the suits on behalf of the gram sabha. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1972 (HC)

Tokha and ors. Vs. Samman and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-03-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H406

1. this second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing the plaintiff's suit.2. in order to appreciate the controversy in this appeal, a short pedigree table may be set down:--chet ram(occupancy tenant: died 1909)__________________________________|__________________________________| |mst. rupan(widow) mst. sama (widow)| |tokha mst. patori(adopted son) (daughter)plaintiff. |ganpat(daughter's son)3. on the death of chet ram, there was a dispute between his two widows and his adopted son tokha. this dispute was settled by a compromise before the revenue authorities. the compromise was that the widows will make a statement before the revenue officer and get the mutation sanctioned in all the three villages in which the land will be entered as one-third, one-third and one-third in the names of the adopted son and the two widows. in case they do not make such a statement, then the land in village sheikhupura will remain in possession of the adopted son and the land in villages kheowali and phaggu would remain in possession of the two widows. steps were taken to get the mutation entered but they failed. the result was that the adopted son remained in possession of the land in sheikhupura and the two widows remained in possession of the land in the two remaining villages. it was also provided in the compromise that on the death of any one of the widows, the land left by her will be mutated half and half between the adopted son and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 1972 (HC)

Bhagwan Dass Vs. Bhishan Chand and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-24-1972

Reported in : AIR1974P& H7

m.r. sharma, j.1. the following pedigree table will be useful for understanding the facts arising out of this second appeal:--jangiri lal____________________|_____________________ | |han rai brij lal (defendant no. 2)|___________________________________________|_____________________________________________| | | | | | |bhisham basti ram ved prakash shivsharan ram gopal mohan lal sudhchand dass (def.no.3) parkash(def.no.2)2. i have not indicated to the names of two daughters and wife of brij lal, who also joined as plaintiffs in the suit filed before the learned trial court. it was held that they had no locus standi to bring this suit and this matter was not challenged in this appeal. the facts giving rise to the litigation may briefly be stated as follows.3. brij lal now a respondent and defendant no. 2 before the learned trial court, mortgaged a house mentioned in the body of the plaint with the appellant for a sum of rs. 10,000/- vide registered deed dated february 21, 1947. the respondents brought the suit in the learned trial court on the ground that his house formed part of the coparcenary property and the mortgage effected by brij lal, their father, being without any valid necessity, was not binding upon them. since they were in possession of the house, they prayed that a declaration in that behalf may be granted in their favour. brij lal had been declared insolvent and the insolvency court vide its order dated february 18, 1960, directed that the house be sold subject .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1972 (HC)

Gurdit Singh and anr. Vs. Darshan Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-15-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H362

1. the following pedigree table, which is not in dispute between the parties, would be helpful in disposing of this regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff appellants in a suit for possession by pre-emption of the agricultural land described in the plaint:--labh singh____________________________|____________________________|||hazara--widow singh smt. inditara singh (plaintiff)gurdial singh (plaintiff)(remarried many years ago.)|_______|______________||wassan singhmakhan singh(died on 27-2-1959)--widow smt. puro (vendor) 2. smt. puro, widow of makhan singh, has sold her share in the land described in the plaint which she was owning jointly with the plaintiff-appellants, as may appear from the copy of the latest jamabandi, exhibit p. 1 for the years 1958-59. the registered sale deed relating to this transaction is exhibit d. 1 dated 10-12-1963. the plaintiff-appellants, who are the father's brothers of makhan singh, the deceased husband of the vendor, have filed this pre-emption suit claiming a superior right on the grounds, firstly that they are collaterals of the last male holder and secondly that they are co-sharers in the holding from which the vendor has sold her share of the land. the courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the case falls in its entirety under section 15(2) of the punjab pre-emption act. as the plaintiff-appellants are not related to the vendor in the manner specified in that sub-section, they have no right of pre-emption. as the case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 1972 (HC)

Malkiat Singh and anr. Vs. Gram Panchayat Sekha Kalan

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-27-1972

Reported in : AIR1974P& H28

1. this appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the senior subordinate judge, ferozepore, dated october 11, 1961, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court by which the suit of the plaintiffs had been dismissed.2. the facts which have given rise to this litigation are the santa singh the father of the plaintiffs was the owner of the land in dispute, which was sold by him along with some other land to ujagar singh and bikar singh. the plaintiffs filed a suit of possession by pre-emption, which was decreed. the revenue officers entered a mutation of gift bearing no. 4657 of the land in dispute in favour of a school situated in sekha kalan, which was managed by the defendant and the same was sanctioned on january 16, 1968. according to the plaintiffs, the mutation in favour of the school is illegal, void and ineffective as their father never made a gift of that property in favour of the school. it is further stated that the gift could not be effected orally by their father as the transfer of property act, 1882 was applicable in the state of punjab and that the consolidation authorities had no right to attest such a mutation. the defendant contested the suit and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. the trial court came to the conclusion that the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit; that the plaintiffs could not challenge the gift and that the plaintiffs were not challenge the gift and that the plaintiffs were not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 28 1972 (HC)

Ram Sarup and ors. Vs. Toti and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-28-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H329

1. the property in dispute consisting of agricultural land measuring 700 bighas kham, originally belonged to one ram nath. on his death, his son hari singh succeeded to it. on the latter's dying issueless, his mother shrimati toti got life estate therein. the mutation, however, was effected by the revenue authorities in favour of the reversioners of hari singh. that necessitated the filling of a suit by toti for a declaration that she was in possession of the property with life interest therein. it was incorrect as alleged by the reversioners, that she had remarried and thus lost her rights in the said property.2. the suit was contested by the reversioners on the main plea that since toti had remarried one duni, therefore, she had lost all her rights in t he property left by hari singh.3. on 18th october, 1918. toti's suit was decreed and it was held that she was in possession of the property and that she had not remarried duni.4. against this decision, the collateral's went in appeal and there a compromise was effected between the parties. according to it, toti got 150 bighas kham in lieu of maintenance, but it was clearly said that she would not alienate the said land in any manner. the rest of the land, according to the compromise was to got to the reversioners.5. thereafter three alienations were made by toti. one was a sale of 9 kanals of land to one daulat on 15th april 1958, another was also a sale of 35 kanals to one mussadi on 17th april, 1958, and the third was a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 1972 (HC)

Piari NaraIn Dut Vs. Viran Devi

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-09-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H40

1. the dispute in this second appeal relates to agricultural land, measuring 9 bighas 12 biswas, situate in village dhandlan, tehsil jhajjar, district rohtak. the parties to this litigation are gaur brahmans. their short pedigree table is given below:--shadi|________________________________|________________________________| |net ram preetu| =shrimati surjannarain datt (widow)=shrimati piari |(widow) plaintiff shrimati veeran| defendantnawal 2. this property was held by preetu, on whose death, it was mutated in favour of his widow surjan. she died on 1st august, 1954, and after her death, it was mutated in the name of her daughter veeran. this mutation was effected on 9th june, 1959. in march, 1960, piari brought a suit for a declaration that the mutation of this land in favour of veeran was wrongly sanctioned, because under the law, she was entitled to succeed to the property of preetu as she was the widow of narain dutt, a second degree collateral of preetu. some other allegations were also made by her but we are not concerned with them in the present second appeal.3. the suit was resisted by veeran. she challenged the locus standi of the plaintiff to bring the suit and averred that she was not an heir of preetu. it was also said that the plaintiff had performed karewa with one suraj bhan and on that account she had lost her rights, if any, in the property.4. the trial judge decreed the suit and held that the parties were governed by custom in matters of succession, that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 08 1972 (HC)

Joginder Kaur and ors. Vs. Balbir Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-08-1972

Reported in : AIR1974P& H31

1. the sole question for decision in the regular second appeal filed by the plaintiffs is whether shrimati balbir kaur defendant-respondent no. 1 had been lawfully married to attra deceased; a proclaimed offender who died in an encounter with the police on 12-4-1961(vide entry in the register of deaths exhibit p-4) and whether balbir kaur's son, joginder singh defendant-respondent no. 2 who was born more than seven months after attra's death and had been conceived during the wedlock.2. shrimathi balbir kaur was previously married to another fugitive from law, namely, harnam singh and the averment made by the plaintiff-appellants in paragraph 2 of their plaint that he had also been killed in a police encounter had not been controverted by the respondents in their written statement. the date of harnam singh's death is, however, not ascertainable from any material on record and it not known as to what was the interval of time between the two police encounters and whether the period was long enough for shrimati balbir kaur to have contracted another marriage and to have lived with the second fugitive from law so very openly and peacefully and that the living together could have received enough publicity for every one to have treated the two as husband and wife, or that the disputed marriage between balbir kaur and attra could be taken to have proved by long cohabitation as husband and wife. the trial court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants for declaration of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 09 1972 (HC)

Sewti Devi Vs. Kanti Parshad and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-09-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H126

1. tulsi ram was the original owner of the land in suit. he had three sons sant lal, harbans lal, and baru. baru died in 1927 leaving behind his widow smt. raji. harbans lal died a year or two later leaving behind his widow smt. daropadi. smt. raji died in 1945 without any issue and the estate of baru was divided between sant lal and smt. daropadi half and half. sant lal died on august 17, 1956, leaving behind his widow smt. ram piari, four sons, namely kanti parshad alias kanta parshad, mani ram alias mani karan, devi dayal and amrit lal and three daughters, namely smt. pushpawati, smt. sona devi and smt. savitri dev. smt. daropadi died in 1958 leaving behind one daughter, smt. sewti devi appellant. the land in suit is situate in three villages and the mutations with regard to the estate of baru after the death of smt. raji were sanctioned in favour of sant lal and smt. daropadi half and half in june, 1945, in the absence of the parties on the attestation of the lambardars of the villages. it is the admitted case of the parties that the land in suit was under the tenants and chakotedars and sant lal used to realise the batai from them and hand over half of it to smt. daropadi during her life time. in 1961, smt. sewti filed a suit against kanti parshad and others, the heirs of sant lal, in the court of revenue officer, ambala, claiming rendition of accounts with regard to the amounts recovered by them from the tenants and payment to her of her one half share.it was stated in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1972 (HC)

inder Singh Vs. Chhaju Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-24-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H255

order1. in order to understand the facts giving rise to these two connected revision petitions, the following pedigree-table may be stated :for pedigree-table see next page.2. in june 1968, inder singh filed a suit against chhajju singh, tara singh and hoshiara singh for possession of half share in the property left by harnama. his allegations were that harnama died on 30th may, 1961, without leaving any heir of class i of the schedule to the hindu succession act, 1956 with the result that the plaintiff and chhajju singh became entitled to his estate in equal shares, they themselves being heirs of class ii of the said schedule. tara singh claimed himself to be adopted son of shyama, but the plaintiff did not admit that relationship. even if its was held that he was actually so adopted, he was not entitled to succeed to the estate of harnama because he was an agnate. it was further stated in the plaint that chhajju singh had got the entire estate of harnama illegally mutated in his favour on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by harnama. the said will was not valid, hoshiara singh brought a suit in 1963 challenging the said mutation and alleging that he was the adopted son of harnama and entitled to succeed him. that suit was dismissed in june 1967 and the appeal against it was also rejected in may 1968 but it was held by the appellate court that the entire land left by harnama was ancestral and if any will or gift was executed in favour of chhajju singh, the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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