Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1990 Page 1 of about 83 results (0.024 seconds)

Aug 21 1990 (HC)

Smt. Bachint Kaur Vs. Smt. Gurnam Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-21-1990

Reported in : (1990)98PLR658

g.r. majithia, j. 1. this regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, affirming on appeal those of the trial judge.2. the facts :--the suit land was originally owned by sher singh and sunder singh having 1/2 share and mihan singh having remaining 1/2 share sher singh and sunder singh had mortgaged their 1/2 share in the suit land in favour of kishan singh for rs. 1,800/ and mutation no. 1547 dated june 14, 1929, ex. p-7 was sanctioned. the mortgagee transferred his mortgagee rights to gian singh and mal singh son of chuhar singh for rs. 1800/- and mutation no. 3345, dated may 16, 1944 was sanctioned. kishan singh executed receipt, ex. d.1, in favour of the transferor mortgagee acknowledging receipt of consideration of rs. 1800/-. sher singh and sunder singh sold their 1/2 share in the suit land to smt. bachint kaur, defendant-appellant, gurbux singh and kashmir singh, defendant-respondents, for a consideration of rs. 7500/- vide registered sale deed dated february 25, 1943, ex. p-4 and mutation ex. p-9 was sanctioned in favour of vendees. gian singh and mal singh sold their mortgagee rights in favour of smt. gurnam kaur, plaintiff respondent no. 1 for rs. 1,800/-. she filed a suit for declaration that she had become the owner of land since the defendants had lost their right of redemption by efflux of time as they lid not exercise the same within the period of limitation prescribed. the defendants joined issue with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1990 (HC)

Jagan Nath Etc. Vs. State of Punjab Etc.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-21-1990

Reported in : (1991)99PLR38

g.r. majithia, j.1. this second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court affirming on appeal, those of the trial court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants for a declaration that they were owners in possession of the: suit land.2. the facts :-hans raj, who was a soldier in the army of the erstwhile state of patiala laid down his life in the kashmir operation in 1948, land measuring 30 bighas was allotted to sat lachhmi devi, mother of hans raj as a posthumous reward to the deceased for his gallantry services. the suit land was allotted in consolidation of holding in lieu of 30 bighas of land. the plaintiffs are the successors-in-interest of smt. lachhtni devi. by an order dated january 12, 1970, the collecctor, ludhiana reversed the mutation order passed by the assistant collector in favoar of the plaintiffs that order was assailed in the suit. the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) maintained that smt. lachhmi devi was not allotted the land as full owner but was given the same for life.3. from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial judge :-(1) was lachhmi davi granted full ownership rights by the maharaja of paliala as alleged in para 1 of the plaint ?(2) if issue no. 1 is proved were the defendants entitled to forfeit the land in dispute ?(3) whether the suit is not triable by civil courts ?(4) whether the suit is not barred by time ?(5) whither the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 04 1990 (HC)

Mansha Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-04-1990

Reported in : (1991)99PLR146

g.r. majithia, j.1. this judgment will dispose of three writ petitions (cwp nos. 3021, 3022 and 3023 of 1988) since common questions of law and facts arise for determination therein.2. in these petitions the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21-9-1987 passed by the s.d.o. (civil) karnal, exercising the powers of collector, karnal, whereby their eviction was ordered from the disputed land under the haryana public premises and land (eviction & rent recovery) act, 1972, which was affirmed on appeal by commissioner, ambala division, ambala, vide order annexure p-7, dated 3-2-1988.3. reference to facts has been made from the pleadings in cwp 3021/1988.4. a scheme of consolidation for village ruksana was prepared under the east punjab holdings (consolidation & prevention of fragmentation) act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the east punjab holdings act) in the year 1958 59. in the scheme, land was reserved for various common purposes. land measuring 400 kanals was also reserved for the income of gram panchayat (respondent no. 2) it was also stated in the scheme that besides the area reserved for common purposes, there was no need of the land for any other purpose. various common purposes for which the land was reserved are mentioned in the scheme annexure pi. besides reserving 400 kanals of land for the income of the gram panchayat, the scheme of consolidation envisage that a pro rata cut from the proprietary land of the owners would be made with a view to completing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 1990 (HC)

Naib Singh and ors. Vs. Ajaib Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-03-1990

Reported in : (1990)98PLR583

g.r. majithia, j.1. the defendant has come up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court reversing on appeal those of trial judge and decreeing the suits of the plaintiffs for separate possession by partition of the suit land.2. the facts :--the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for separate possession by partition of the suit land against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). the parties are brothers. one of their brothers malkiat singh had died prior to the filing of the suit and his estate was suceedad to by defendants no. 3 and 4. the plaintiff claimed that the suit land was inherited by the parties from their father in equal shares and he had 1 /6th share in the estate of his father. there was partial partition between the parties but the land comprised in khewat no. 730, khatauni no. 77(sic), khasra nos. 214, 215, 352 and 353 continued to be joint property of the parties. the plaintiff moved the revenue officer for partition of the land. the application f or partition was declened on the ground that the plaintiff had not included the entire joint land in his petition for partition of the joint property and that some part of the land had ceased to be agricultural land since it had been partially built up he sought declarator that he was entitled to 1/6th share in the said land and he was entitled to separate possession by partition.3. the defendants contested the claim of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1990 (HC)

Banarsi Dass Vs. Jiwan Ram (Deceased) Son of Dewan Chand and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-05-1990

Reported in : AIR1991P& H85

1. vide this judgment, the present regular second appeal and also regular second appeals nos. 3071 and 3072 of 1987 arising between the same parties and relating to the same land are being diposed of: pleadings in the three suits are common. thus undisputed facts are taken from the file of regular second appeal no. 2481 of 1987.2. on june 5, 1951,the land was mortgag-ed with possession for rs. 1,200/-. after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for redemption of the mortgage, a sum of rs. 1,200/- was paid on september 29, 1981, to one of the mortgagees and the mortgage deed was taken. civil suit no. 16 of 1984 was filed by banarsi das and another for declaration that the land measuring 16 kanals stood redeemed and the plaintiffs were in possession thereof free from all encumbrances. the plea taken by the defendants, jiwan ram and others was that at the time of creation of the mortgage which was with possession, the mortgagor was allowed to remain as a tenant. the mortgage was not redeemed within the period of thirty years. a sum of rs. 1,200/-was paid on september 29, 1981, to one of the mortgagees towards rent and the mortgage deed was taken away by banarsi dass and others for getting a mutation of inheritance recorded in their favour. this suit was dismissed by the trial court on september 10, 1985, and appeal filed by banarsi dass and others failed in the lower appellate court. hence this regular second appeal.3. two other suits were filed by the mortgagees. civil .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 21 1990 (HC)

Jagir Singh and ors. Vs. Rajdev Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-21-1990

Reported in : (1990)98PLR639

g.r. majithia, j. 1. this revision petition is directed against the order of additional district judge, patiala whereby he allowed amendment in the written statement on the application filed by the respondents.2. the facts :the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of the land detailed at point 'x' in the preamble of the plaint and that the defendants were not the owners of said land and further the defendants are not their landlords qua the said land nor the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between them and as a consequent relief the defendants could not evict them under the provisions of punjab tenancy act or pepsu tenancy agricultural land act. the defendants had instituted ejectment proceedings against them falsely alleging that they were their tenants.3. the defendants controverted the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that original owner of the land in suit was rachhpal singh son of alam singh of village lulon. he executed a registered gift deed dated june 24, 1981 in their favour. mutation on the basis of that gift was also attested in their favour. the plaintiffs were holding tie land as tenants under rachhpal singh and after his death, the plaintiffs become the tenants on the suit land under the defendants. the trial judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and held that they were owners of the suit land and not tenants and that the gift deed dated june .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1990 (HC)

Hari Singh and Others Vs. Bishanlal and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-19-1990

Reported in : AIR1992P& H11

order1. the defendants have come up in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court reversing on appeal those of the trial court and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession of the disputed land.2. the facts :--respondents nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit challenging the alienation of the trust property made by respondents nos. 3 and 4/defendants nos. 1 and 2 (for short the alienors) in favour of defendants nos. 4 and 8/appellants (for short the alienees), inter alia, on the ground that the property was the trust property. a charitable religious trust was created by the kaisth community of rohtak for the management, administration and welfare of the temple which is famous by the name of mandir chitar guptji maharaj. the persons of the kaisth community and other people worshipped at the temple and made offerings. the plaintiffs are the devotees of the temple and have interest in the temple and the trust property. the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs gifted the property to the temple. mutation no. 405 was sanctioned in favour of the mandir chitar guptji maharaj on 30-12-1889. the alienors claiming themselves to be the secretary and the president of trust created for the management of the temple sold the property vide sale deed dated 30-6-1973 in favour of the defendant-alienees. the sale was not in the interest of the temple and was thus, illegal and void. the alienees controverted the pleas of the plaintiffs and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 1990 (HC)

Chand Singh Vs. Balbir Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-19-1990

Reported in : (1990)97PLR613

ordern.c. jain, j.1. the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit to the effect that he was owner in possession of the disputed land in pursuance of a registered sale deed executed on june 6, 1936. since the defendant-respondent did not agree for the sanctioning of the mutation, a suit for declaration has been filed. at the initial stage, the defendant appeared through a counsel and admitted the claim of the plaintiff. however, at later stage the defendant has filed an application for amendment of the written statement withdrawing the admission of the claim in written statement. the amendment has been allowed and the defendant has been allowed to contest the suit by the trial court under the impugned order learned counsel for the petitioner shri d. r. mahajan has argued that after the claim of the plaintiff was admitted, the trial court had do jurisdiction to allow the amendment in the written statement withdrawing the admission in the written statement. for this proposition, he has cited m/s modi spinning & weaving mills co ltd. and anr. v. m/s. ladha ram and co. a. i. r. 1977 s. c. 680 and haji mohammad ishaq wd/o s. k. mohammad and ors. v. mohammad iqbal & mohammad ali & co. a. i. r. 1978 s. c. 798.2. on the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant respondent has brought to my notice jagtar singh v. state of punjab, a.i.r. 1983 s.c. 463 and ganeshi v. smt. rajwan and anr., 1985 rev l. r. 508. having given thougtful consideration to the entire .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 1990 (HC)

Garja Singh and Another Vs. Surjit Kaur and Another

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-11-1990

Reported in : AIR1991P& H177; II(1992)DMC50; (1992)102PLR612

1. the unsuccessful plaintiffs have come up in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court which, on appeal, affirmed those of the trial judge and dismissed their suit for possession of the suit land and also for perpetual injunction.the facts:--gulaba (since deceased) was the last male owner of the property in dispute. he died on september 5, 1969. the plaintiffs claim themselves to be the grandsons of father's brother of the deceased. they also set up a willallegedly executed by the deceased on august 16, 1969 in their favour. the relationship of defendant no. 1 with the deceased was denied. it was denied that she was validly married to the deceased. karewa nama dated october 28,1965 alleged to have been executed between defendant no. 1 and the deceased was merely a paper transaction. in the karewa nama it was recited that defendant no. 1 was married to bishan singh who had died about four years back. but in fact, said bishan singh had died on april 22, 1964. the mutation of inheritance of the deceased was sanctioned in favour of defendant no. 1 and this led to the filing of the instant suit.2. defendant no. 1 denied the allegations made in the plaint and claimed that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased who had contracted karewa form of marriage with her. karewa nama was executed and registered october 28, 1965. she denied that she was married to nazar singh. the will pleaded by the plaintiffs was forged and fictitious. she denied .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 1990 (HC)

Bhag Singh Vs. Jarnail Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-23-1990

Reported in : (1990)98PLR223

a.l. bahri, j. 1. this revision has been filed by bhag singh plaintiff against order of sub fudge, jagraon, dated november 19, 1987, directing him to make good deficiency of court-fee on the plaint. the plaintiff was asked to pay advalorem court-fee under article i schedule i of the court fees act.2. the suit was filed by bhag singh for declaration that he was owner in possession of the land treasuring 24 kanals situated in village galib kalan, tehsil jagraon, distt ludhiana, after setting aside the sale deed dated june 23, 1986, executed by jarnail singh-defendant as attorney of the plaintiff in favour of gurmit kaur-defendant no. 2, for rs. 45,000/- which was illegal, void and ineffective qua the pain-tiff's rights. mutation sanctioned on the basis of the said sale deed was also challenged. he also wanted to avoid mortgage of 8 kanals of land executed by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 3. according to the plaintiff he did not execute any power of attorney in favour of defendant no. 1 who is alleged to have mortgaged or sold the land on the plaint court-fee of rs. 19.50 was paid. after objection being raised, the trial court vide the impguned order held that the advalorem court fee on the market value of the land was payable as the sale was being challenged.3. learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that court-fee paid on the plaint was in order, in the alternative it has been argued that the land in dispute being assessed to lard revenue, and the court fee .....

Tag this Judgment!


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