Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1998 Page 1 of about 178 results (0.036 seconds)

Feb 12 1998 (HC)

Vinod Kumari Vs. Surinder Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-12-1998

Reported in : I(1999)DMC502

..... and others. nachhatar singh, rw 5 who is surinder singh's father stated that surinder singh was never married to vinod kumari. only negotiations for marriage took place through the mediation of amrit lal which fell through because vinod kumari was already married to shingara singh.9. in this case thus it emerges that vinod kumari was married to shingara singh ..... hand stated that he was never married to vinod kumari. there was only a talk regarding his marriage with vinod kumari but that talk did not materialise. amrit lal was mediator. he became annoyed when the negotiations for marriage between him and vinod kumari fell through. vinod kumari was married to shingara singh. ganda singh, rw 3 stated that he ..... mediated the marriage of vinod kumari with shingara singh. vinod kumari was married to shingara singh about 8 years ago according to hindu rites. pandit satpal performed the marriage ceremony between .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 1998 (HC)

H.M.T. Limited Vs. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-20-1998

Reported in : (1998)120PLR221

..... item-wise break-up and indicating the quantities thereof. in this break-up, as far as possible, all important basic raw materials shall be shown as separate items. the inter-mediates manufacturers may, if their list is too large to be included in the break-up, be grouped under suitable heading without mentioning the quantities provided all those items which in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 1998 (HC)

Piari Bai Vs. Smt. Jamna Bai

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-21-1998

Reported in : (1998)120PLR510

orderg.c. garg, j.1. plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession along with the defendants in equal shares of the land as fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint. case of the plaintiff is that the land was owned by jagtar singh, her father and on his death, she inherited the same equally along with defendants. she also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ousting her from the suit land and also restraining them from alienating by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, gift, transfer, lease or in any manner whatsoever any specific khasra numbers, beyond their shares and without getting the suit land partitioned. the suit was resisted by the defendants by filing a written statement. case of the defendant-petitioners is that the plaintiff is not the daughter of jagtar singh and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. defendant no. '1 is the widow of jagtar singh and the defendants are only heirs of deceased jagtar singh. the factum of jagtar singh contracting two marriages was denied. it was denied that the defendants in league with the revenue authorities got a mutation sanctioned. it is denied that the mutation is illegal or void. the defendants are the absolute owners in possession of the suit land.2. after the framing of the issues, the parties led their respective evidence and when the suit became mature for arguments, the defendants moved an application seeking amendment of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 1998 (HC)

Tara Singh and anr. Vs. Sardara Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-14-1998

Reported in : (1998)118PLR784

n.k. agrawal, j.1. this a second appeal by the plaintiffs. a civil suit was filed by three brothers namely, tara singh, sital singh and sardara singh before sub judge, second class, kharar in the year 1975 for declaration to the effect that they were the owners in possession of 1/2 of the land situated in village ghoga kheri, tehsil sirhind, now kharar. the declaration was sought on the ground that the suit land had been mortgaged by defendant no. 1. pritam singh, with the father of the plaintiffs for rs. 1,600/- in the year 1948. right to redeem the mortgage expired after 30 years and, therefore, declaration to that effect was sought in the said civil suit. the land in question was mortgaged by pritam singh (defendant no. 1) with mahan singh (father of the plaintiffs) under a marriage deed on may 18, 1943. mutation no. 366 was sanctioned on june 9, 1943. after the death of the original mortgagee, mahan singh, the plaintiffs being the sons of mahan singh, stepped into the shoes of their father and claimed in the civil suit that right to redeem the mortgage had extinguished after the expiry of 30 years and they had become the owners of the land.2. defendant no. 1 in his written statement before the trial court, took the plea that 1/2 of the mortgaged land was released by the mortgagees in the year 1968 without receiving any money. the entire mortgage amount (rs. 1,600/-) was made a charge oil the remaining 1/2 land. a report (no. 319) was recorded by patwari in roznamcha on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 1998 (HC)

Bikkar Singh Etc. Vs. Nirmal Kaur Etc.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-26-1998

Reported in : (1998)118PLR861

swatanter kumar, j.1. suit for joint possession and declaration was filed by nirmal kaur respondent herein against niranjan singh and others. the suit was filed on the allegations that late karaka singh was the owner of the suit land measuring about 30 bighas 9 biswas. he died after coining into force of the hindu succession act, 1956. upon his death, plaintiff and defendants no, 1 and 2 were entitled to the property on the plea of inheritance being legal heirs of the deceased, as defendants no. 1 and 2 were minor at that time, the suit was contested on the ground that the mutation recorded in the name of the plaintiff was illegal, null and void. according to the defendants, the plaintiff was trying to take unnecessary benefits of the illegal mutation entries recorded at the back of the contesting defendants. further, according to the defendants, the plaintiff had no right in the property because she had already been married and residing in village nathuwala garbi tehsil moga. the right of inheritance was denied. the case was also contested by defendants no. 4 to 6 and 8 to 17 who claimed to be the bonafide purchaser for consideration and claimed protection of section 41 of the transfer of property act. these defendants claimed the sale through defendants 1 and 2 also alleged that karaka singh had died before 1956. the learned trial court framed as many as 16 issues and issue no. 2, as framed by the trial court, reads as under :-'2. if issue no. 1 is proved, in affirmative .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 1998 (HC)

Faridabad Complex Administration Vs. Amitabh Adhar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-03-1998

Reported in : (1999)121PLR208

v.k. jhanji, j.1. this is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court whereby on appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, judgment and decree of the trial court has been set aside and in consequence thereof suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed.2. plaintiffs filed suit for declaration against the defendant, namely, faridabad complex administration praying for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are absolute owners in possession of land measuring 341 kanals 9 marias situated in village lakkarpur, tehsil ballabgarh, district faridabad and revenue entries in the column of ownership of jamabandi in favour of faridabad complex administration are wrong and liable to be rectified. plaintiffs also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession and enjoyment by leasing out or auctioningjhe suit land. the principal contention of the plaintiffs was that after the provisions of haryana village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 act) were struck down by this court, shamilat deh land could not vest in the municipal committee or the faridabad complex administration. the plaintiffs claiming themselves to be proprietors, claimed to be the owners of the suit land.3. defendant, on appearance, contested the suit. in its written statement, defendant denied the averments made in the plaint and inter-alia contended .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1998 (HC)

Raja Ram (Died) Through Lrs. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-25-1998

Reported in : (1999)121PLR599

g.s. singhvi, j.1. for the purpose of establishing new mandi township at amarkot, the government of punjab acquired 241 kanals 19 marlas land of village valtoha and 1 kanal 19 marlas of land of village mehmudpur. notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') was issued on 7.10.1980 (published in the gazette dated 13.10.1980) vide award dated 28.5.1982, the land acquisition collector granted compensation in the following manner:for 20 karams deep belt along the road rs. 60,000/- per acrefor remaining land rs. 20,000/- per acre.2. the landowners filed 15 reference applications for enhancement of compensation. the learned additional district judge, amritsar clubbed these applications and disposed them of by a common judgment dated 19.12.1984. he enhanced the compensation in respect of the land falling within 20 karams belt from rs. 60,000/- per acre to rs. 76,000/- per acre. the judgment of the reference court was challenged by the claimants who filed appeals for further enhancement for compensation. the state of punjab also filed appeals for quashing the enhanced compensation awarded to the landowners. by a detailed common judgment dated 1.4.1987 rendered in regular first appeal no. 296 of 1985, parbandhak, mandir mata vaishno devi, village valtoha, district amritsar v. state of punjab, the learned single judge dismissed the appeal, filed by the state of punjab and partly accepted those filed by the landowners by directing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 11 1998 (HC)

Ranjiv Singh Saini Vs. Arjan Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-11-1998

Reported in : (1999)123PLR741

swatanter kumar, j. 1. learned counsel for the appellants has contended that as per the principles enunciated by the hon'ble supreme court of india in the case of bhoop singh v. ram singh, (1996-1)112 p.lr. 559 (s.c.), the court was obliged to examine to greater detail whether the party had a pre-existing right or not. he further contended that learned courts below have mis-appreciated the evidence and have not arrived at a correct decision in consonance with the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court of india. in order to examine the merits of this contention, reference to the basic facts would be necessary.2. ranjiv singh saini and another son of arjan singh filed a suit against him stating that they were sons of arjan singh; the defendant was owner in possession and he had transferred the said land by way of a family settlement in favour of the plaintiffs on 15.6.1996 and as total land has fallen to their share they have become owners in possession. they further stated that as the defendant was trying to resile from the settlement, the suit for declaration was filed. the defendant filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and even made a statement to that effect. as hardly any issue arose for determination before the learned trial court, no issue was framed and a legal controversy whether a decree in favour of the plaintiffs should be passed or not was decided by the learned trial court. the learned trial court came to the following conclusion:'however, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 1998 (HC)

Punjab State Vs. Harnek Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-25-1998

Reported in : (1999)121PLR787

v.k. bali, j.1. the challenge herein is to judgment and decree passed by sub judge 1st class, ludhiana dated 22.3 1997 vide which suit for possession filed by respondent harnek singh son of jiwan singh was decreed and the properties subject matter of dispute fully detailed in the heading of the plaint were ordered to be handed over to the plaintiff-respondent.2. the brief facts of the case reveal that harnek singh son of jiwan singh brought a suit for possession of land measuring 1-10-13 pukhta and building constructed marked a and b respectively thereon shown in red in the plan attached with the plaint and bounded as mentioned in the headnote of the plaint situated at village taraf piru bauda, ludhiana and some other properties in village taraf piru bauda, mohalla dera kalsian, gill road, tehsil and distt. ludhiana. i he burden of the plaint was that the land described above was a part of khasra no. 2820/112 constituting a part of bigger parcel of land measuring 2 bighas 18 biswas and 7 biswansis as per jamabandi for the year 1941-42 and that father of .jiwan singh had purchased two pieces of land from syed hamid ali and murad baksh residents of ludhiana vide two separate registered sale deeds dated 28.8.1942 and 18.8.1942 respectively. thereafter father of the plaintiff constructed a building, which has been shown in red colour in the plan, on the plots in dispute and started residing in the property as its owner. on the death of his father in 1943-44, the plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1998 (HC)

Hanuman and ors. Vs. Giarsi Lal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-15-1998

Reported in : (1999)123PLR434

orderv.s. aggarwal, j. 1. the present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned additional civil judge (sr. division), narnaul, dated 24.2.1998 and the learned additional district judge, narnaul dated 26.9.1998. the learned trial court had dismissed the application seeking ad-interim injunction and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned additional district judge, narnaul.2. the petitioners had filed a civil suit for a declaration that they are owners in possession of the agricultural land in controversy and that the respondents have no concern with the ownership and possession of the same. it was claimed further that ownership entry in the name of giarsi lal respondent in the revenue record is totally wrong and illegal.3. the petitioners had claimed that the total land in controversy was owned as mushtarka malkam. it was in possession of bhai ram father of petitioner no. 1 and har lal father of petitioners 2 and 3 and one yad ram. they continued to be in possession of it since 1965. yad ram had died in 1972. after his death bhai ram and har lal continued in occupation of the land. they became owners by adverse possession. bhai ram died on 18.11.1996 and har lal died on 17.8.1992. now they claim that they are in possession and have become owners of the land in question. according to the petitioners 12 kanals and 9 marlas of land was acquired by irrigation department of haryana. bhai ram and har lal got compensation and the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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