Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1984 Page 1 of about 56 results (0.024 seconds)

Dec 12 1984 (HC)

Prithi Vs. Yatinder Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-12-1984

Reported in : AIR1985P& H238

1. this judgment will dispose of r. s. a. nos. 1543, 1637 to 1642 and 1660 of 1982 which arise out of eight suits which were consolidated by the trial court and were disposed of by one judgment.2. ganeshi lal was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs. during his lifetime, vide mutation exhibit p. 1 dt. 12th dec. 1901, he transferred his property in favour of his only son kanshi nath, who died in the year 1902. on the death of kanshi nath, his property was mutated in favour of his two sons, namely hari kishan dass and ram chand vide mutation exhibit p-2 dt. 4th april, 1902. ram chand died unmarried. on his death, his estate was mutated in favour of his brother hari kishan dass vide matation exhibit p-3 dt. 26th dec. 1902. hari kishan dass died on 1st feb. 1970 on his death, his estate was mutated in favour of his three sons (plaintiffs) and one daughter shashi prabha vide mutation exhibit p-4 dt. 28th sept. 1970, in equal shares i.e. 1/4th each. hari kishan dass had property in more than one district and being a big landowner his case for determining the surplus land was tried by the special collector. the special collector in his order dt. 21st june, 1976 (exhibit d-2) relied upon mutation exhibit p-4, where under all the four heirs of hari kishan dass got 1/4th share each and passed the orders accordingly. in the jamabandi also for the year 1976-77 (exhibits p-21 to p26) the shares of all the heirs of hari kishan dass were shown to be 1/4th each. shashi prabha daughter of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1984 (HC)

Balwant Singh Vs. ChatIn Sing and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-02-1984

Reported in : AIR1985P& H74

1. on 23-9-1960, partap singh gifted part of his agricultural land in favour of balwant singh, his daughter's son by a registered deed exhibit p. 1 pratap singh died on 2-6-1969, and after his death, balwant singh applied for sanction of mutation in his favour with regard to the gifted land. the mutation was entered but it was not finally sanctioned because the natural heirs disputed the validity of the gift. thereafter, on 17-12-1971, balwant singh filed the present suit to seek possession of the land which was gifted to him as the same was taken possession of by the sons and grandsons of pratap singh in the plaintiffs' absence as he was serving in the army. since the sons and grandsons of pratap singh contested the suit and pleaded that the gift was not valid, one of the pleas raised was that the gift deed was not acted upon inasmuch as possession of the gifted land had not been given to the donee. the validity of the gift was also challenged under custom but during the pendency of the suit the right to challenge any alienation was taken away with retrospective effect with the result that only one point survived for consideration of the courts below that whether there was a completed gift or not. both the courts below held that it was not proved that the possession of the gifted land was delivered to the donee, nor it was proved that the gift was accepted by or on behalf of the donee. consequently, the suit was dismissed. this is second appeal by the plaintiff.2. after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 1984 (HC)

Kishan Singh Vs. Mithu Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-10-1984

Reported in : AIR1984P& H422

j.v. gupta, j.1. this case came up for hearing before me sitting singly earlier, but since the question involved was not free from difficulty and was likely to arise in many cases, it was thought in the fitness of things that the matter be decided by a larger bench. it is in these circumstances that this case has come up before this division bench.2. the only point to be determined in this appeal by us is as to whether the order of the collector (exhibit p. 4), dt. 20th aug. 1968, whereby he dismissed on merits the application filed by the plaintiff-mortagagor under s. 4, redemption of mortgages (punjab) act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), holding that the applicant (plaintiff) had failed to prove that he was the mortgagor qua the land, in dispute, was an order without jurisdiction or within jurisdiction. it is not disputed and is a common case of the parties that if the said order of the collector was within jurisdiction, then the suit must be filed within one year thereof for the setting aside of the said order and in case it is held to be without jurisdiction, then the necessity of getting the same set aside as such did not arise.3. to recapitulate, the facts are that on 4-6-1923, bahal singh mortgaged 37 kanals 10 marlas of land to harnam singh (now deceased) for rs. 440/-. mutation in this behalf, exhibit p. 1, was sanctioned in the name of the said harnam singh. after the death of bahal singh, the estate was mutated in the name of his widow shrimati mallan .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1984 (HC)

Jarnail Singh Vs. NaraIn Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-18-1984

Reported in : AIR1984P& H181

1. this is defendant's second appeal against whom the suit for possession of the agricultural land has been decreed by both the courts below:2. the plaintiffs brought the suit for possession of the half share of the land measuring 93 kanals 17 marlas against jarnail singh defendant-appellant, on the allegation that bhan singh and dan singh were the co-owners of 93 kanals 17 marlas of land. the said bhan singh together with kalyan singh, hainam kaur, dan singh and narain singh, plaintiff, owned 94 kanals 3 marlas of land specified in paragraph 3 of the plaint. kalyan singh and harnam kaur expired. narain singh, plaintiff, got their inheritance. on the demise of dan singh one mst. panna describing herself as the widow of dan singh, deceased, got his land mutated in her favour which led the plaintiffs to file a suit against her which was dismissed by the trial court. on appeal being filed a compromise was arrived at therein. mst. panna delivered possession of the land to the plaintiffs admitting that they were the heirs of dan singh. the plaintiffs were the heirs within the fifth degree of bhan singh who passed away on feb. 8, 1967, and were thus, entitled to inherit him. the alleged will by bhan singh in favour of jarnial singh, appellant was a fictitious document and that the mutation sanctioned on ifs basic was not binding on the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs. the suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the will in favour of the defendant by bhan singh, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1984 (HC)

Ajmer Singh and ors. Vs. Atma Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-13-1984

Reported in : AIR1985P& H315

1. this is defendants' second appeal against whom the suit for declaration and possession was dismissed by the trial court, but decreed in appeal.2. the plaintiff-respondent atma singh filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he was in possession of the suit land as the owner after the cancellation of the gift deeds dated jan. 12, 1977, in the names of defendants nos. 1 to 3. it was alleged that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the land measuring 14 kanals and 12 marlas. he was an old man and it was difficult for him to move about. his eyesight was also weak. charna alias charan singh, the father of the defendants, was a man from baradari and not a collateral. he was very intimate with him. he requested him to look after his property and came to the tehsil headquarters for the execution of the special power of attorney in his favour at his instance and pursuation; he himself being an old man with feeble health and weak eyesight. charna, father of the defendants, taking advantage of his weakness fraudulently got executed the gift deed dated jan, 12, 1977, in the names of his sons, defendants nos. 1 to 3. charan singh, the father of the defendants, mis-represented the facts as regards the gift deeds and told him that the papers related to the special power of attorney in his favour about his land. he signed the documents i.e. thumb marked under the impression that he was signing the papers in regard to the special power of attorney in favour of charan singh .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 12 1984 (HC)

Vinod Kumar and anr. Vs. Suresh Pal

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-12-1984

Reported in : AIR1985P& H361

order1. by this judgment i am going to dispose of three civil revisions (c. r. nos. 181, 182 and 183 of 1985) wherein identical questions of fact and law are involved.2. the facts briefly stated giving rise to these revisions are that owners of land situate in village naharpur, teshil jagadhari, district ambala, sold the same to three sets of vendees who are the petitioners in these revisions. the sale deeds were executed on 3rd of january, 1983 and were registered on 10th january, 1983, at delhi under section 30(2) of the registration act. normally, under section 28 off the said act such sale deeds are to be registered in the office of a sub-registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property is situate but section 30(2) authorises the registrar of the delihi district to register the sale deeds without regard to the situation in any part of india of the property. the plaintiff-respondent suresh pal brought three separate suits for possession on 23rd of august, 1984, to pre-empt these sales. applications were also filed along with the suits for condonation of delay in the filing of the suits. these applications were allowed by the trial sub-judge, jagadhari, on 12th of september, 1984. the orders passed by the trial court have been challenged by the vendees of the three sale deeds in these revisions petitions.3. the core question for determination in these cases is whether the trial sub-judge had lawfully permitted the filling of the three suits .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1984 (HC)

Karnail Singh Vs. Jagir Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-17-1984

Reported in : AIR1984P& H294

rajendra nath mittal, j. 1. this is a revision petition by the defendant against the order of the subordinate judge iiird class, ambala city, dated 25th february, i882.2. briefly. of the plaintiff is that the defendant was his real brother they had joint land in patti mehar in 1977. the parties partitioned the holding by way of family settle and mutation of partition was duly sanctioned by the revenue officer on 3rd january. 1978. in the partition proceedings. khasra no. 860 was divided into three parts and the plaintiff was allotted khasra no. 860/3, measuring 10 marlas. the state of haryana acquired land measuring 1.89 acres under the land acquisition act (hereinafter called the act) for a public purpose, which included the land in dispute. it, however, did not give any notice under section 9 of the act, nor it gave any notice matter announcement of the award to the plaintiff. he. therefore, it is alleged, remained under an impression that the said khasra number had not been acquired the defendant came to know about the acquisition and he withdrew the sum of rs. 1955/- awarded as the amount of compensation concealing the factum of partition between the parties. the defendant also moved an application for enhancement of the compensation under section 18 of the act on the basis of. which the compensation was. enhanced by en amount of rs. 20.835/-. the amount has been deposited by the state in the court of the additional district judge ambala. consequently, the plaintiff filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 1984 (HC)

Gurbax Singh Vs. Bhajan Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-10-1984

Reported in : AIR1985P& H172

1. this is plaintiff second appeal whose suit for possession of the agricultural land has been dismissed by both the courts below.2. bhajan singh, son of tota singh and ram rakhi, widow of tota singh were the owners in possession of 205 kanals and 13 marlas of land. the suit land measuring 32 kanals formed part of the said land. bhajan singh defendant sold the suit land for a consideration of rs. 2,000/- vide sale deed registered on 24th may, 1967 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. according to the plaintiff, the possession was delivered to him but he could not get the mutation sanctioned regarding the sale of the suit land in his favour and, therefore, the defendants taking benefit of the wrong entries in the revenue record took the possession of the suit land illegally a year prior to the filing of the suit. the suit was contested by the defendants, inter alia, on the ground that earlier the plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendants on 26th may, 1972 for possession of 1/7th share of 207k 2m of land, including the suit land, and the same was dismissed. thus, in the previously instituted suit, the plaintiff did not make mention of the sale deed in his favour and, as such, the suit was liable to be dismissed. however the trial court found that the plaintiff did purchase the suit land from defendant no. 1 under registered sale deed dt. 23rd may, 1967 but no possession was, ever delivered to him under the said sale deed and, therefore, the question of dispossessing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 1984 (HC)

Naurang Singh and anr. Vs. Jangir Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-18-1984

Reported in : AIR1985P& H268

1. this is a defendants' second appeal against whom the suit for possession by way of redemption was dismissed by the trial court, but decreed in appeal.2. originally, inder singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondents instituted the suit for possession of the half share of the land measuring 22 kanals 10 marlas on payment of rs. 965/- on the allegations that the said land was shown as mortgaged by him in favour of naruang singh and bhag singh sons of tillu singh in the jamabandi for the year 1965-66. the defendants had earlier file a suit wherein he was held to be a mortgagor. thus, he was a mortgagor and naurang singh and bhag singh along with others were the mortgagees, redeemed from them, but the land, in dispute, in possession of naurang singh and bhag singh, mortgagees, remained with them as such; hence the suit for redemption thereof. the suit was contested on behalf of the defendants on the plea that the same was barred by time and that the plaintiffs deceased inder singh was not entitled to redeem the suit land as he had already redeemed his one-half share which he had purchased from the mortgagor mst. karam bibi, who had succeeded to the mortgagor bura alias rura. the trial court found that the suit was within limitation, but the deceased inder singh, plaintiff, was not entitled to redeem the suit land as he had purchased the equity of redemption only to the extent of one-half of the mortgaged land from mst. karam bibi and the remaining one-half .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1984 (HC)

Amar Kaur Vs. Raman Kumari and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-17-1984

Reported in : AIR1985P& H86

1. ram chand was the original male-holder, who died on 6th dec. 1946 leaving his widow smt. dhanti and two daughters shankari and amar kaur. on his death his agricultural land was mutated in favour of his smt. dhanti. on 27th nov. 1948 smt. dhanti gifted the entire estate in favour her two daughters and the mutation of gift was duly sanctioned. both the daughters survived the enforcement of hindu succession act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). on 4th february, 1972, smt. shankari died without leaving husband or a descendant. her estate was mutated in favour of her sister amar kaur. at the time of death of shankari kahan chand her husband's son, from another wife was alive, who died on 5th oct. 1972 leaving being his widow and children. his widow and children filed the present suit on 1st november, 1973 to claim succession of the estate left by smt. shankari on the basis of the gift from her mother and claimed that the inheritance to her was to be governed by s. 15(1) of the act.2. smt. amar kaur contested the suit and pleaded that shankari has succeeded to the estate of her mother/father and, therefore s. 15(2) of the act was applicable and not s. 15(1) of the act, inasmuch as the gift has to be considered as acceleration of succession.3. both the courts below decreed the suit after recording a finding that on the basis of gift, she became the owner of the property and since gift did not amount to acceleration of succession, it could not be held that the property .....

Tag this Judgment!


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