Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1992 Page 1 of about 106 results (0.023 seconds)

Apr 01 1992 (HC)

Yad Ram and ors. Vs. Ram Lal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-01-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR604

n.k. kapoor, j.1. this plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree of the additional district judge, gurgaon, whereby the suit decreed by the trial court was reversed in appeal.2. the plaintiffs filed suit under order 1 rule 8 of the code of civil procedure on the allegation that land comprised in khewat nos. 392 to 394 measuring 126 kanals 2 marlas as per details given in schedule 'b' of the plaint is recorded as owned by shamlat patti bhawani singh 'hasab rasad qabza zamin' as per entries in the jamabandi for the years 1966-1967, the plaintiffs further averred that the defendants and other persons mentioned in the list 'a' attached to the plaint are owners /co-sharers and thus entitled to get the same partitioned. on an application filed before the assistant collector i grade to get the joint land partitioned, question of title was raised and so the parties were directed to get it determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. hence this suit3. basis of the claim of the plaintiffs is that they were occupancy tenants and became owners of the land in their possession in view of the punjab occupancy tenants (vesting of proprietary rights) act, 1951, and thus, have become co-sharers and entitled to claim a share in respect of shamlat land corresponding to the land in their ownership4. defendants no. 1 to 4 filed a written statement and raised preliminary objections, i e., the suit is barred by time; that all those persons who were necessary parties have not been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1992 (HC)

Gurchetan Singh and anr. Vs. Karnail Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-30-1992

Reported in : (1992)101PLR490

v.k. jhanji, j.1. this civil revision has been directed against the order of learned sub judge 1st class, jagraon dismissing the application of defendants no. 1 and 2 to produce secondary evidence of the will dated 5.3.1984 alleged to have been executed by waryam singh.2. waryam singh who died on 29.9.1984 leaving behind karnail kaur, daughter, ajit singh, son nasib kaur widow of jarnail singh, pritam kaur, amarjit kaur, gurchetan singh, charan singh, pritam singh, daughters and sons of jarnail singh who predeceased his father waryam singh. on the death of waryam singh, mutation to his inheritance was sanctioned on 6.8.1985 on the basis of unregistered will dated 5.3.1984 in favour of ajit singh to the extent of 1/2 share and the remaining 1/2 share was sanctioned in favour of gurchetan singh and charan singh. before the revenue officer, ajit singh at the time of mutation produced original will along with photostat copy of the same. mutation was confirmed by tehsildar on 29.8.1985 in presence of charan singh and karnail kaur and another heir of jarnail singh. as per the case of the petitioners, ajit singh mortgaged land which had fallen to his share in favour of bank of india for a sum of rs. 15,000/- and mutation to that effect was also sanctioned. petitioners also mortgaged some land in favour of the bank to get some loan. on 14.5 1990 karnail kaur filed a suit for possession claiming 1/3rd share of the property belonging to waryam singh. in her suit, she claimed to be one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1992 (HC)

Mohinder Vs. Bakshi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-03-1992

Reported in : (1993)103PLR237

n.c. jain, j.1. this judgment would dispose of regular second appeal nos. 1595 and 1628 of 1987 as both the appeals are between the same parties. however, i would pick up regular second appeal no. 8 of 1987 in the first instance as the decision of this appeal would have direct bearing on the decision to be arrived at in the other appeal, that is r.s.a. no. 1595 of 1987.2. this litigation to start with commenced between three brothers namely, bakshi, pakhar and mohinder appellants sons of naraina. mohinder, admittedly, purchased 121 kanals 9 marias of land from the central government for a sum of rupees 8500/-. a mutation of exchange of the aforesaid land of mohinder was entered and sanctioned by virtue of which the land stood transferred in favour of bakshi and pakhar in lieu of houses and a tour belonging to bakshi and pakhar. the mutation of exchange is no. 685 dated 31.8.1963. in consequence of the aforesaid mutation, the appellant stood divested of his ownership rights of the land measuring 121 kanals 9 marias. the mutation of exchange gave rise to the filing of a suit by the appellant wherein exchange of his land measuring 121 kanals 9 marias was challenged on the ground that he was forced to make a statement before the revenue officer admitting the exchange. in that suit a compromise was entered into by jagar attorney of bakshi and pakhar who happened to be living in singapore at the relevant time. according to the compromise decree dated 23.1. 1969 mohinder was made .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1992 (HC)

Bhagat Ram Alias Bhagat Singh and ors. Vs. Shamsher Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-26-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR63

n.k. kapoor, j.1. this is plaintiff's appeal against the judgments and decrees of the courts below whereby their suit for declaration has been dismissed.2. briefly put, the plaintiffs instituted suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they are owners in possession of suit land detailed in paras (a), (b) and (c) of the head-note of the plaint situated in village patti, h. b. no. 287 and that the defendant be restrained from interfering in their possession over the said land. it was averred that the suit property was owned and possessed by dasondhi ram son of labha and a part of it was also owned and possessed by them. the said dasondhi ram died on 27-4-1975 issueless. his wife had pre-deceased him. the plaintiffs further averred that they were entitled to succeed to his estate under the hindu succession act ; and otherwise also they were his natural heirs. plaintiffs nos. 2 and 3 are sons of sucheta real brother of dasondhi ram whereas plaintiff no. 1 is the son of rattan singh alias thakur the pre-deceased son of sucheta. it was further aver- red that after his death, the estate of dasondhi devolved upon them and thus they came into possession of his property-both moveable and immoveable it was also stated that they used to look after dasondhi and used to render all types of services to him. the plaintiffs pleaded that the alleged will dated 8.12.1967 executed by dasondhi in favour of the defendant is false, fictitious and forged document and has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 1992 (HC)

Gurcharan Singh Vs. the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-24-1992

Reported in : (1993)104PLR246

a.s. nehra, j.1. civil writ petition no. 5025 of 1991 (gurcharan singh v. the financial commissioner (revenue), punjab, and ors., and civil writ petition no. 5024 of 1991, (balbir singh v. the financial commissioner (revenue), punjab, and ors.) have been filed by the petitioners under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india for the issuance of a writ for quashing the impugned order dated 6-4-1990 passed by the financial commissioner (revenue) punjab. both these writ-petitions will be disposed of by this judgment.2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under :-gurcharan singh son of balwant singh and balbir singh, petitioners purchased the land, in dispute, through registered sale-deeds dated 8-6-1973 and 11-6-1973 from mahadev parshad, on the basis of which; mutations were sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on 27.6.1977 by the assistant collector 1st grade, ferozepore. aggrieved by the order of the assistant collector 1st grade, respondents nos. 2 to 5 filed an appeal before the collector which was dismissed on 22-11-1977. the revision petition filed by respondents nos. 2 to 5 was dismissed by the additional commissioner, ferozepore, on 28-4-1982. the revision petitions r. o. r. no. 470 of 1981-82 and r. o. r. no. 471 of 1981-82 filed by respondents nos. 2 to 5 were allowed by the financial commissioner on 6-4-1990. while accepting the revision petitions, the financial commissioner held that sale-deeds executed in favour of the petitioners would defeat the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1992 (HC)

Vishwa Mittar Vs. Jit Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-24-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR618

g.r. majithia, j.1. the unsuccessful plaintiff-appellants have assailed the judgment and decree of the first appellate court affirming on appeal those of the trial judge dismissing their suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondents to leave a passage as per terms of the compromise recorded in civil suit no. 32 of 1975 decided on january 3, 1975, in this regular second appeal. ,2. the facts :-the plaintiff-appellants (hereinafter the plaintiffs) filed civil suit no. 32 of 1975 for restraining the defendant-respondents (hereinafter the defendants) from blocking the passage shown as 'abcd' leading to their fields from the main road, comprised in khasra no. 2064/1302 and 1065/1302, by erecting a field boundry at point c that the suit ended in a compromise on the statements of the parties ; that in accordance with the compromise, the parties left a path and agreed to preserve the same ; that the suit was dismissed in terms of the compromise duly recorded in court ; that the plaintiffs had been using the path, but six months prior to the filing of the suit, the defendants started cultivating the land underneath the path and this necessitated the filing of the present suit as stated above.3. defendant no. 1 admitted that civil suit no. 32 of 1975 had been filed. the other pleas were denied and it was pleaded that the alleged compromise was never acted upon ; that the other co-sharers through whose land the passage was carved out were not made parties to the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1992 (HC)

S. Gopal Singh and ors. Vs. Punjab State

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-24-1992

Reported in : (1993)103PLR213

orderg.r. majithia, j.1. the unsuccessful plaintiff has come up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court partially modifying those of the trial judge and holding that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.2. the facts:- the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter the plaintiff) was allotted land measuring 122 kanals 12 marlas daring consolidation; that mutation no. 3840 was sanctioned on april 26, 1965 by the assistant consolidation officer having powers of assistant collector, ii grade amritsar; that this mutation was subsequently reviewed on the ground that excess land was allotted to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff was allotted khasra numbers 3261, 3263, 3224, 3181, 3184 and 3190 during consolidation and total area of these khasra numbers came to 113 kanals 7 marlas and not 122 kanalas 12 marlas; that the plaintiff's entitlement was only for 122 kanals 7 marlas; that the plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the order of the reviewing authority before the collector, commissioner and the financial commissioner; that having lost before these authorities, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for declaration that mutation no. 3840 dated april 26, 1965 was correctly sanctioned by the assistant consolidation officer.3. the defendant-respondent (hereinafter the defendant) denied the allegations made in the plaint.4. from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial judge :-(1) whether the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 1992 (HC)

Gurdev Singh and anr. Vs. Jagroop Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-07-1992

Reported in : (1993)103PLR86

a.s. nehra, j.1. the defendants-appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10-1-1979 passed by the district judge, faridkot. by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff respondent was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 17-1-1978 passed by the trial court was set aside and the suit for possession, filed by the plaintiff-respondent, was decreed.2. the plaintiff respondent filed a suit for possession of land measuring 14 kanals 7 marias, alleging that he is a harijan and purchased the suit land on 19-3-1964 at a public auction from the custodian (evacuee property) for a sum of rs. 1400/- that he deposited the said amount in the state bank of india, moga, on 24-3-1964; that a sale certificate was issued in his favour; that he was declared and accepted as purchaser/owner of the said property with effect from 6-5 1964; that, in the year 1968, the suit land was wrongly allotted to jawala singh, being a displaced person, to which the plaintiff objected; that, considering the objection of the plaintiff, the allotment of the suit land in favour of jawala singh was cancelled; that the defendants, during the period of illegal allotment of the suit land to jawala singh, had taken illegal possession of the suit land; and that the defendants refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff when they were asked to do so; and that, therefore, a decree for possession of the suit land be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.3. defendants nos. 1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1992 (HC)

Nahar Singh and ors. Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-21-1992

Reported in : (1993)103PLR33

harmohinder kaur sandhu, j.1. the applicant-appellants have moved this application (r. a. no 80-c.it of 1991) under order 47, rule 1, civil procedure code, for review of our judgment dated september 13, 1991, rendered in f. a. o. no. 109 of 1979.2. the principal grounds for review set down in the review application are : -(i) that sections 3 and 4 of the places of worship (special provisions) act, 1991 (for short, the 1991 act) were not adverted to while deciding the appeal ; and(ii) that important documentary evidence produced by the applicant-appellants was not taken note of while deciding the issue arising for determination.3. a perusal of the penultimate paragraph of the judgment reveals that we found no embargo for converting a dharamsala existing as on august 15, 1947 into a sikh gurdwara and in coming to this conclusion, reliance was placed on a decision of this court in f. a. o. no. 63 of 1964, gurbachan singh and ors. v. shiromani gurdwara prabandhak committee and ors. f. a. o. 63 of 1964, decided on april 8, (970. in arriving at this conclusion, we did not take note of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the 1991 act. section 3 of the 1991 act says that no person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomi-nation of any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof. section 4(1) of the 1991 act says that the religious character of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 1992 (HC)

Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Governm ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-31-1992

Reported in : (1993)103PLR501

g.r. majithia, j.1. the petitioners have impugned the order of financial commissioner, haryana, dated august 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the commissioner, dated may 2, 1979 in this writ petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india.2. the facts :the petitioners' father, shri ram kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and gulab singh, report in the roznamcha was entered at serial no. 119 on november 22, 1952. the mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on march 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a civil suit by one of the sons, namely, mai ram the suit was decreed on january 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of civil courts decree was sanctioned on april 21, 1957. the collector, hissar, vide his order dated march 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. the order provided that form f be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the punjab security of land tenures rules, 1956. the petitioners were not issued any notice by the collector, agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. after passing the order, he did not communicate form 'f' to the petitioners the petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the commissioner. the same was rejected on may 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation the order of the commissioner was assailed in revision before the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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