Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1979 Page 1 of about 26 results (0.025 seconds)

Aug 10 1979 (HC)

ibrahim Vs. Sharifan

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-10-1979

Reported in : AIR1980P& H25

prem chand jain, j.ibrahim, plaintiff-appellant is the brother of smt, sharifan alias shanti, defendant-respondant. their father akbar and uncle bhiku were occupancy tenants. after the coming into force of the occupancy tenants (vesting of proprietary rights) act, they became owners of the land in dispute. during the year 1947, when communal disturbances broke out, akber and other members of the family adopted hindu names so that they could remain safe during the disturbances. akbar died in the year 1957 and the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned treating the parties as hindus in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant. and their mother nanhi in equal shares. smt.. nanhi died in the year 1986 and the mutation of her inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant in equal shares. on the death of bhiku, the uncle of the parties, the mutation of his inheritance was again sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant in equal shares. the defendant had started living in village kambohpura a few years earlier to the institution of the suit. the plaintiff claims himself to be in exclusive possession of the land inherited from akbar and bhiku, including the share which was mutated in the name of the defendant. in the year 1969, the defendant threatened to take forcible possession of her share, with the result that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be the sole owner of the property measuring 48 kanals 2 marlas as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 1979 (HC)

State of Haryana Vs. Kailashwati and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-11-1979

Reported in : AIR1980P& H117

s.s. sandhawalia, c.j.1. this set of eleven regular first appeals--all preferred by the state of haryana (with cross-objections in nine) admittedly give rise to identical issues of law and fact and are, therefore, being disposed of by thus single judgment.2. by a notification under s. 4 of the land acquisition act published in the government gazette on the 1st of may, 1973, an area of 70 acres in all was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of the construction of the hissar bye-pass on national highway no. 10 connecting delhi, hissar, sirsa and fazilka. in this acquisition proceedings, that followed, the collector rendered his award on the 24th of dec. 1973, wherein he classified the land into two blocks on the basis of its proximity or otherwise from the village of sat rod and awarded compensation at the rate of' rs 6480)per acre for the land falling in 'a' block and at the rate of rs. 5000/ per acre for the remaining land in 'b' block. feeling dissatisfied with the compensation awarded the landowners preferred a number of references which were all consolidated for trial by the learned additional district judge, hissar. the solitary issue framed therein on merits was with regard to the compensation to be awarded to the landholders and it is the common case that in this set of appeals also this very question is the only one which fails for determination.3. on behalf of the landowner-claimants as many as 11 instances of sale transactions in the vicinity exhibits p. 1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1979 (HC)

Biro and anr. Vs. Banta Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-17-1979

Reported in : AIR1980P& H164

1. the important question of law which arises in this appeal is whether the civil court is bound by the decision of the criminal court holding the accused guilty or it has to come to an independent conclusion on the evidence led in the suit. banta singh plaintiff was convicted by the criminal court under s. 304, i.p.c., for causing such bodily injuries to his adoptive father jaggar singh, as a result of which he ultimately died and he was deprived of succession in view of s. 25 of the hindu succession act by the revenue court as they mutated the land left by jaggar singh in favour of his two sisters. the present proceedings arise out of a suit filed by banta singh for declaration and possession challenging the adverse mutation.2 admittedly, jaggar singh was the last male holder who died on l7th of apr, 1957, as a result of injuries alleged to have been caused to him by his adopted son banta singh and the natural father of banta singh. at the time of death. jaggar singh possessed 195 kanals 19 marlas of agricultural land banta singh was adopted by jaggar singh in 1947 and a formal deed of adoption was registered on 18th of may, 1855. by gift deed dated 3rd of aug., 1956 jaggar singh had made a of 40 bighas of land in favour of his a opted son banta singh.3. the revenue authorities mutated the land left by jaggar singh in favour of smt. biru and smt. parsini. the alleged sisters of jaggar singh, and refused to sanction the mutation in favour of banta singh-as adopted son on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1979 (HC)

Kundan Singh and ors. Vs. Fauja Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-06-1979

Reported in : AIR1979P& H212

1. this is a second appeal by the plaintiffs against judgment and decree of the additional district judge, amritsar, dated august 5, 1968, reversing the judgment of the trial court, whereby suit of the plaintiffs had been decreed.2. briefly, the facts are that buhan singh and wadhawa singh, were the owners of the property in dispute. wadhawa singh, it is alleged, was not heard of since the year 1900, and, therefore, he was presumed to be dead prior to 1907-1908. it is averred that consequently bukan singh became its sole owner thereafter. at that time the property stood mortgaged with kala singh son of kharak singh for an amount of rs. 2,698/-. bukan singh sold it in favour of hakam singh by virtue of a registered sale deed dated february 24, 1912, for an amount of rs. 2,500/-, and left an amount of rs. 1,800/- with the vendee for payment to the mortgagee. it is further averred that hakam singh after paying the amount of rs. 2,698/- to the mortgagee on may 10, 1912, got the land redeemed and obtained possession thereof. hakam singh died about 30 years back, leaving two sons, mangal singh and harnam singh plaintiff. later, mangal singh also died issueless and wifeless, leaving a will regarding the property in favour of kundan singh, dalip singh and massa singh plaintiff nos. 1 to 3. on the basis of the will, mutation regarding the share of mangal singh was sanctioned in favour of plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 on april 22, 1964. it is alleged that thus, plaintiff nos l to 4 became .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 1979 (HC)

Darshan Singh Vs. Kuldip Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-07-1979

Reported in : AIR1979P& H250

order1. this is a revision petition against the order of the subordinate judge, jullundur, dated february 20, 1979.2. kuldip singh plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner of the property in dispute as a sole heir of ram kishan singh, his father, and the mutation no. 2447 sanctioned on may 16, 1975, in the name of the defendant on the basis of an alleged will by his father is illegal, null, void and inoperative against him. the case of the plaintiff is that after the death of his father ram kishan singh, he became owner of the property in dispute, being his legal heir. he averred that the defendant got the mutation sanctioned on may 16, 1975 on the basis of will dated september 11, 1973, alleged to have been executed by ram kishan singh in his favour. the defendant inter alia pleaded that ram kishan singh executed a valid will in his favour and he obtained letters of administration from the high court of justice at birmingham on the basis of that will on aug. 9, 1977(?) which operated as res judicata between the parties. one of the issues framed by the court was as follows:--''whether the order dated august 9, 1977 passed by the high court of justice at birmingham operates as res judicata between the parties?''the said issue was treated as a preliminary issue. the court held that the order of the high court at birmingham does not operate as res judicata and consequently decided the issue against the defendant. he has come up in revision .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 02 1979 (HC)

Atma Ram Vs. Parsini and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-02-1979

Reported in : AIR1979P& H234

g.c. mital, j.1. this appeal under clause x of the letters patent is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge dated sept. 16, 1975, in s. a. no. 451 of 1972, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent on reversing the concurrent judgments and decrees of the courts below, by which the suit was dismissed.2. shrimati parsini, plaintiff, filed the present suit for possession claiming the estate left by bhagwana, as his daughter, against atma ram appellant and others, on may 26, 1966, on the ground that bhagwana died on sept. 2, 1958 and she being his daughter was entitled to succeed to the property which he possessed at the time of his death.3. atma ram defendant-appellant contested the suit and denied that smt. parsini plaintiff was the daughter of bhagwana and claimed succession to the estate left by bhagwana on the basis of registered will dated oct. 15, 1957. he also relied on the previous judgments delivered by the first appellate court and the high court between him and ram chand and ram piara, wherein the registered will was held to have been proved. he also pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation besides challenging the locus standi of the plaintiff to file the present suit.4. on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:--1. whether the suit is within time? o. p. p. 2. whether the plaintiff has any locus standi to file the present suit? o. p. p. 3. whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 1979 (HC)

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Kasturi Lal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-25-1979

Reported in : AIR1980P& H72; 1980CriLJ63

s.s. sandhawalia, c.j. 1. whether a single judge of the high court is barred from initiating proceedings for criminal contempt in view of the provisions of section 18 of the contempt of courts act, is the question, which because of its significance and some intricacy has been formulated for determination by this large bench on a reference made by a full bench2. it does appear a little surprising that despite the passage of well nigh nine years since the enactment of the contempt of courts act, 1971 (hereinafter called the 1971 act), the question aforesaid appears yet to have remained virtually res integra--barring a judgment of this court, the correctness of which has itself been put in issue. the matter, therefore, deserves to be considered with some degree of elaboration--both on principle and in the light of the relevant statutory provisions.3. in a matter so pristinely legal, the facts would obviously pale into relative insignificance. nevertheless the matrix thereof giving rise to the salient question, and the mode and manner in which it has come before this bench deserves to be recounted albeit briefly.4. one hazi phuman and others preferred a habeas corpus petition in this court in which notice was issued to the respondents to produce the detenu and farther a warrant officer was appointed to go and search for them in the premises of the police station maler kotla where they were alleged to have been unlawfully detained. in the course of the proceedings the warrant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 1979 (HC)

Sher Singh Vs. Vijay Kumar and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-12-1979

Reported in : AIR1980P& H270

order1. the important question of law for determination is: whether the payment of the decretal amount in execution of the pre-emption decree, through cheque by the judgment-debtor (decree-holder?) is a valid tender under o. xx, r. 14, civil p. c. (hereinafter called the code)? 2. the facts are not in dispute. one jawala devi sold her land in favour of capt. vijay kumar, respondent no. 1. after the sale, the latter filed a suit for possession and injunction (hereinafter called the first suit) which was decreed on the basis of a compromise on sept. 27, 1976. in respect of this sale, a suit for preemption was filed by sher singh petitioner, against capt. vijay kumar, vendee-respondent. the preemption suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and he was directed to deposit the balance amount of the decretal amount of rs. 11,202/- in the court on or before may 15, 1978. the first suit decreed on the basis of a compromise was to the effect that if the pre-emption suit was decreed and the pre-emptor decree-holder deposited the decretal amount in accordance with law the suit of capt. vijay kumar respondent shall stand dismissed. otherwise, his suit will be deemed to have been decreed. 3. in execution of the pre-emption decree, sher singh, petitioner, filed an application on may 15, 1978 in the execution court for deposit of rs. 11,202/- as balance decretal amount on which the executing court issued the chalan. the decree-holder instead of depositing the said amount, in cash. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 1979 (HC)

Madan Lal and anr. Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-02-1979

Reported in : AIR1980P& H87

s.s. sandhawalia, c.j.1. in this act of 24 civil writ petitions, the points of fact and law are utterly identical and the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that this judgment would cover all of them.2. in view of the identity of the facts, it suffices to advert to those in civil writ petition no. 1447 of 1976 madan lal v. state of punjab in which the main arguments were addressed by mr. h. l. sibal whilst the other learned counsel virtually rested themselves content by adoption the same.3. the primary claim herein is to the title and possession of a two-kanal plot by the petitioners in the bhatinda urban estate and the sale of sites therein s averred to be governed by the punjab urban estates (development and regulation) act, 1964 and the punjab urban estates (sales of sites) rules, 1965 framed thereunder. it is averred that respondent no. 2 the estate officer invited applications with earnest money of 10 percent regarding the allotment of two-kanal plots = plots in the urban estate aforesaid under rule 5. of the rules above mentioned. the petitioners submitted an application along with a demand draft dated 28th of october, 1971 for a sum of rs. 2,500/- for the allotment of a two-kanal plot. apparently, much later on the 26th of february, 1972, respondent no. 2 is alleged to have put in an advertisement in 'the tribune', in the following terms:--'the allotment of residential plots of one,-kanal, 10 marlas and 7 1/2 marlas in the urban estate, bhatinda, will be made .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 1979 (HC)

Daulat Ram Vs. Girdhari Lal and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-09-1979

Reported in : 1979CriLJ1204

sukhdev singh kang, j.1. daulat ram, appellant, has filed this appeal against the judgment, dated the 7th november, 1975, passed by shri h.l. randev, additional district judge, barnala, exercising the powers of appellate authority under the east punjab urban rent restriction act, who has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under section 340, criminal procedure code, for launching prosecution against the respondents for offences under sections 193 and 471, indian penal code.2. daulat ram, appellant, had filed an application under section 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act (hereinafter called the act) against girdhari lal, respondent, for his eviction from house no. 4607, situated at barnala, which was occupied by girdhari lal, tenant-respondent. the main ground for eviction set up in the petition was that the tenant had not paid the rent. girdhari lal, tenant-respondent put in a written statement and stated therein that he had paid the rent amounting to rs. 1980/- for the period from 1st of june, 1971 to 30th of may, 1976. in order to support his case, he produced a receipt purported to have been issued by daulat ram, appellant. he examined bharpur singh to substantiate his claim. he made his own statement also. the learned rent controller did not accept the version set up by girdhari lal, respondent. he came to the conclusion that the receipt produced by girdhari lal was a forged and fictitious document and that girdhari lal and bharpur singh, .....

Tag this Judgment!

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