Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 165 results (0.046 seconds)

Feb 19 2004 (HC)

Jarnail Kaur Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-19-2004

Reported in : 2004CriLJ3143

..... , it cannot be said that the petitioner was with the party for demanding dowry from the deceased wife. the complainant in his statement has alleged that 'jarnail kaur who was mediator of harpal kaur told me that we have humiliated them by giving less dowry as compared to dowry given to rachhpal kaur and stated that she will see how my ..... harassed by her in-laws family for putting pressure to bring more dowry. it was also alleged that the petitioner, who is the real mausi of the deceased was a mediator in the marriage and she was also compelling the deceased to bring more dowry. because of the demand of dowry and the harassment, his daughter was coerced to commit suicide ..... no question of asking the deceased to bring more dowry. rather, the petitioner is the real mausi of the deceased. she was only a mediator. the complainant was having grudge against the petitioner because she being the mediator in the marriage and because of the bad relations between both the families, she has been falsely implicated. the learned counsel further submitted that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2004 (HC)

Kuldip Singh and anr. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-05-2004

Reported in : II(2004)DMC628

..... relationship is an unhappy one and beyond repair then the parties acting sensibly separate from each other. if the parties are married they try to reconcile the differences either through mediators, relations or friends. they even attempt conciliation through concealing and iron out their differences. when the differences are deep and there has been much acrimony, one of the parties to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 2004 (HC)

Surjit Kaur Vs. Nirver Singh (Dead) Through Lrs

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-13-2004

Reported in : AIR2005P& H125; (2005)139PLR696

..... know the name of the person to whom the land had been given on batai. it is also not her case that the land was given on batai through some mediator. otherwise also, it is proved from the record that the appellant was not living with deceased, teja singh. it is also natural that daughter or daughter-in-law, who is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2004 (HC)

Sardara Devi and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Hissar Division and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-04-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR628

g.s. singhvi, j.1. in this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing orders dated 15.10.1980 (annexure pi), 25.2.1981 (annexure piii) passed by sub divisional officer (civil), exercising the powers of assistant collector, 1st grade, bhiwani (respondent no. 3), collector, bhiwani (respondent no. 2) and commissioner, hissar division, hissar (respondent no. 1) respectively under the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 (for short, 'the act'), as applicable to the state of haryana.2. late shri kanha ram, of whom the petitioners claim to be the legal representatives, filed a suit on 3.10.1978 in the court of respondent no. 3 with the prayer that he be declared as the owner of land measuring 15 kanals 10 marlas situated in village palwas, tehsil and district bhiwani and mutation no. 1602 dated 15.5.1954 sanctioned in favour of gram panchayat, palwas (respondent no. 4) may be declared as illegal. he claimed that the land in question was in his possession since 1950 and respondent no. 4 had no right over it. the suit was dismissed by respondent no 3 vide order dated 15.10.1980 on the ground that the same was time barred. respondent no. 3 held that the mutation sanctioned in favour of respondent no. 4 could be challenged within 6 years and as the suit had been filed after 24 years, the same was liable to be dismissed. the appeal and revision filed by the present petitioners were dismissed by respondents no. 2 and 1 respectively.3. shri i.s. balhara, learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 29 2004 (HC)

Dhanpat and anr. Vs. Kesar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-29-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR680

ashutosh mohunta, j.1. the defendants have filed this appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 21.10.1982 passed by the additional district judge, kurukshetra, whereby the suit for declaration filed by smt. kesar and mst. jehro, respondent nos. 1 and 2, has been decreed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 15.4.1981 passed by the sub judge, 1st class, kaithal.2. briefly, the facts of the case are that smt. kesar and smt. jehro filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land left behind by their brother duni chand, who died issueless in the year 1951. according to them the defendants got the mutation entered in their favour in the year 1953 without notice to them, which fact came to their notice in the year 1972 when the defendants refused to pay the batai to them. the suit was contested by the defendants who pleaded that the plaintiffs are not the sisters of duni chand deceased and that they being collaterals, the mutation was got entered in their name. they also pleaded that the suit was barred by time and that they had become owners by way of adverse possession. on the pleadings of the parties, the sub judge, 1st class, kaithal, framed a number of issues. however, the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation and the uninterrupted and continuous adverse possession of the defendants since the year 1953. however, the plaintiffs were held to be the sisters of duni chand defendant and owners of the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2004 (HC)

Ranjit Singh Vs. Kanwaljit Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-23-2004

Reported in : AIR2004P& H211

m.m. kumar, j. 1. this is defendant's appeal filed under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the code) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents.2. the plaintiff respondents 1 to 4 filed civil suit no. 368 of 2001 on 5-7-1989 seeking a declaration to the effect that they along with defendant -appellant, their father and defendant-respondents 5 to 10 who are their brothers and sisters were owners in joint possession in equal shares of the suit land. it was further alleged that the will, if any, in possession of the defendant appellant was null and void and is not binding upon their rights as the same was procured fraudulently and by misrepresentation. another prayer for passing of a decree for permanent injunction was also made for restraining the defendant-appellant and defendant-respondents from alienating, mortgaging and transferring the suit land in any manner as a consequential relief. the following pedigree table would show the relationship inter se between the defendant-appellant and plaintiff-respondents/defendant-respondents :-- ava singh | ranjit singh (defendant-appellant) | joginder kaur - wife (expired) | _____________________________|______________________________________________ | | | | | | | | smt. parduman jarnail smt. jaswinder lakhwi- kanwal- mohin- dalbir singh singh harbh- singh nder jit der kaur (def.- (def.- ajan (def.- kaur singh singh def.- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 2004 (HC)

Hari Chand Vs. Daya Chand and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-07-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR724

m.m. kumar, j.1. this is defendant's appeal filed under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the code') challenging the view taken by the learned additional district judge, bhiwani in his judgment and decree dated 23.7.1999 while disagreeing with the decision of the civil judge (jr. division), charkhi dadri, who had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents in toto, vide his judgment dated 4.9.1997. the plaintiffs-respondents have filed a civil suit no. 367 of 1988/1986 instituted on 15.9.1988/31.5.1996 seeking a declaration against the defendant-appellant to the effect that the civil court decrees dated 15.4.1988 and 14.6.1988 suffered by one mohlar titled as hari chand v. mohlar were null and void. it was further claimed that the mutation dated 18.6.1988 sanctioned on the basis of the decree passed in civil suit no. 318 of 1988 on 14.6.1988 was also illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff-respondents. the civil judge dismissed the suit by concluding that mohlar himself did not challenge those decree during his life time and had specifically stated before the court that he had given his land to one smt. shanti, who was the daughter of his brother. the afore-mentioned smt. shanti also did not challenge the decree suffered by mohlar in favour of the defendant-appellant hari chand. it is pertinent to mention that budh ram had two sons mohlar and bhagwana. bhagwana had died during the life time of his brother mohlar and was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 2004 (HC)

Gurdip Singh Vs. Balwant Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-28-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR791

hemant gupta, j.1. the plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below arising out of suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff has become owner in possession by way of adverse possession of land measuring 22 kanals 16 marlas.2. it is pleaded case of the appellant that waryam singh, uncle.of the plaintiff, was owner in possession of the land in dispute, he died on 17.2.1978. the plaintiff claimed his estate on the basis of will dated 13.2.1972. however, the plaintiff remained unsuccessful in mutation proceedings. the defendants filed the ejectment petition for the ejectment of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff denied the ownership of the defendants in written statement dated 28.4.1978, ex.p7. however, the said ejectment order was dismissed on 29.12.1978 on the ground that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.3. the present suit has been filed on 27.7.1995 after more than 17 years of the dismissal of the suit filed by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff has asserted hostile possession by way of written statement on 28.4.1978 and more than 12 years has since been passed but the defendants have not taken any steps for possession, therefore, the plaintiff has become owner by adverse possession. both the courts have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant, interalia on the ground that the possession of the plaintiff was permissible as he has sought title in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2004 (HC)

Shavinder Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Punjab Through Land Acquisition ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-05-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR724

orderadarsh kumar goel, j.1. land of the appellants was acquired pursuant to notification dated 14.3.1975 under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (for short, the act) for extension of police lines, fardikot. the collector vide award dated 28.10.1983 determined market value of the land to be rs. 80,000/- per acre for a part of the land and rs. 45,000/- per acre for another part of the land. the appellants preferred a reference. the reference court affirmed the award of the collector and fixed compensation at the rate of rs. 80,000/- per acre. other statutory benefits were also allowed. hence this appeal.2. learned counsel for the appellants submitted that compensation ought to have been enhanced having regard to location of the land and its potential value. he submitted that admittedly, the land was within municipal limits and near the bungalows of government officers like deputy commissioner, senior superintendent of police etc. he submitted that the reference court erred in rejecting the sale instances which were produced by way of mutations, as summarised in para 9 of the impugned award to the following effect :-no. mutation date area pric price per acreexhibits number of sale sold mls kls.a.1 268/269 05.02.1982 0-19 rs. 30,000/- rs. 2,54,000/-a.2 256 24.03.1982 0-12 rs. 20,000/- rs. 2,66,560/-a.3 2536 06.09.1972 1-14. rs. 21,000/- rs. 98,880/-a.4 2754 28.04.1975 1-13 rs. 23,000/- rs.l,12,000/-a.5 1613 06.12.1974 0-08 rs.1,25,000/- rs. 2,50,0000/-a.6 195 18.12. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2004 (HC)

Baij Nath and ors. Vs. the Financial Commissioner and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-12-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR303

virender singh, j.1. mr. jaswai at the very start states that baij nath and sheo singh petitioners no.l and 3 respectively have already died, whereas sadhu singh petitioner no. 2 is alive and he is pursuing the present petition in his representative capacity,2. sheo singh (since deceased) alongwith one tejpal singh had filed a suit in their individual capacity and also on behalf of all the proprietors under order 1 rule 8 cpc against respondent no. 5 gram panchayat kalsana, tehsil thanesar, district kurukshetra on 24.8.1954 for permanent injunction, asserting therein that some land (suit land) had become shamlat deh due to river action and the plaintiffs, who were the land owners in the village and were in possession of the same, were apprehending that the gram panchayat would interfere with their possession over the said land, for which it should be restrained.3. respondent no. 5 while defending its case asserted that the land was shamlat deh and it vested into the gram panchayat under section 3 of the punjab act 1954. the other objection raised by the gram panchayat was that the suit for injunction was not competent as the civil court was barred from taking cognizance.4. the main issues inter alia framed by the court were as to whether the land in dispute has become shamlat due to river action and therefore the provision of punjab act 1 of 1954 do not apply to the same? and whether the civil court has the jurisdiction to try the suit or not?5. the learned sub judge, 1st .....

Tag this Judgment!


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