Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2004 Page 2 of about 165 results (0.083 seconds)

Feb 25 2004 (HC)

Karan Singh Vs. Surta and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-25-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR845

adarsh kumar goel, j.1. the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession stating that the suit land was purchased by his grand father des raj while father of the defendants was cultivating a part of the suit land under the plaintiff but subsequently, the defendants were entered as owners to the extent of l/4th share and they filed an application for partition on the basis of mutation no. 1675 dated 28.2.1948 which was sanctioned without knowledge of the plaintiff. the suit was contested with the averment that ancestors of the defendants had l/4th share in the suit which was admitted by the plaintiff and his mother in the presence of giani, lambardar which led to mutation dated 28.2.1948 and the defendants have continued in possession.2. the trial court dismissed the suit under issue nos. l and 2, it was held that mutation no. 1674 dated 28.2.1948 was binding on the plaintiff. the plaintiff relied upon jamabandi for the year 1940-41 ex. p-10 as well as jamabandi for the year 1928-29 showing ram sarup, father of the plaintiff to be the owner but hargobind was shown to be in possession as 'bina lagan bavajah aapas dari'. there was entry dated 5.7.1947 to the effect that plaintiff and his brother made a statement in presence of lambardar that names of chandgi and bhagwana sons of shiv ram, be entered as owners of l/4th share for which they were already in possession and on that basis,, mutation dated 28.2.1948 was sanctioned. thereafter, in the jamabandi for .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 2004 (HC)

Lachman Singh and ors. Vs. Kishan Singh (Dead) Through Lrs.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-12-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR372

m.m. kumar, j. 1. this is plaintiffs appeal filed against the judgment of reversal dated 22.1.1982 passed by the learned district judge, sangrur. the suit of the plaintiff-appellants claiming possession of the suit land has been dismissed.2. the plaintiff-appellants filed civil suit no. 152 dated 21.3.1980 claiming that they were owners of the suit land as they have been cultivating the same along wish bali singh son of mangal singh who was their father. bali singh died leaving behind three sons and a widow who are the plaintiff-appellants. after the death of bali singh mutation is alleged to have been sanctioned in their favour. it has been alleged that the defendant-respondent has forcibly and un-authorisedly entered possession in kharif 1979 and despite requests he refused to handover the possession. the trial court placed reliance on sale certificate ex.p-4 duly signed by the assistant collector 1st grade, sunam in favour of the plaintiff-appellants and mutation no. 1252 ex.p-3 sanctioned in their favour. the plaintiffs have been shown in column no. 8 as owners. bali singh father of the plaintiff-appellants was shown in cultivating possession as tenant at will in the jamabandi for the year 1977-78 ex.p-1 which contains a note that mutation of the land was san:tioned in favour of the plaintiff-appellants. in khasra girdawari for the period 27.10.1078 to 5.10.1979 ex.p-2 possession of the father of the plaintiff-appellants has been shown. however, from kharif 1979 defendant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2004 (HC)

Tikkan Lal Batta (Deceased by Lrs) and ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-17-2004

Reported in : AIR2005P& H145

viney mittal, j.1. this judgment shall dispose of two regular second appeals bearing r.s.a. no. 2857 of 1980 and r.s.a. no. 2958 of 1980, as both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below. whereas r.s.a. no. 2857 of 1980 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased chanan devi, r.s.a. no. 2958 of 1980 has been filed by defendants no. 13, 11 and 15.2. chanan devi, plaintiff, filed suit for joint possession claiming 2/9th share in the suit land measuring 203 kanals, 2/27th share in the land measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas, 1/18th share in the land of khata no. 18/42 to 52 and 2/9th share in khasra no. 936/(6-18). it was claimed by her that the aforesaid lands were originally owned by shrimati bhagwanti devi widow of dewan chand son of bishan dass. aforesaid bhagwanti had died intestate leaving no issue behind. thus, according to the plaintiff, the property left behind by shrimati bhagwanti was to revert back to defendants namely, jamna dass, harkishan dass and labhu ram. the plaintiff claimed that accordingly the property was to revert back in equal shares i.e. 1/3rd to the branch of labhu ram, 3/3rd to the branch of harkishan and 1/3rd to the branch of jamna dass who were real brothers of bishan dass, father of dewan chand. accordingly, the plaintiff claimed that the mutation of inheritance of bhagwanti should have been entered and decided accordingly. chanan devi, plaintiff, was the daughter of labhu ram. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2004 (HC)

Jagat Singh (Deceased) Vs. Babu Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-29-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR543

nirmal singh, j.1. this is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment dated 29.8.1984 of the learned lower appellate court affirming in appeal the judgment of the learned trial court, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.2. the plaintiff filed a suit alleging that he was owner in possession of 5/8th share in 749 kanals 2 marlas of land as detailed in the head note (a) and 276/864 share of rasta as detailed in head note (b) of the plaint situated in the area of village alamwal p.s. mahilpur, district hoshiarpur. it was further pleaded that defendant nos. 1 to 3 got sanctioned mutation no. 173 in their favour in connivance with the revenue authorities on the basis of a compromise deed and the wrong entries in the revenue record required to be corrected. the defendants obtained the compromise decree by mis-representation and fraud. the compromise pertained only to the estate of udey ram, father of the parties. suit land was never owned exclusively by udey ram, but was jointly owned by udey ram and ram ditta in equal shares. the plaintiff inherited the share of ram ditta and it was never in dispute in the previous litigation. the plaintiff asked the respondents to admit the claim but they denied. hence the suit was filed.3. respondents no. 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 contested the suit and controverted the allegations and raised a number of legal objections.4. on merit, it was pleaded that in civil suit no. 50 of 1977 which was pending between the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 22 2004 (HC)

Karnail Singh and ors. Vs. Bhajan Singh (Died) Through Lrs.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-22-2004

Reported in : AIR2005P& H207; (2005)140PLR170

viney mittal, j.1. the plaintiffs have approached this court through the present regular second appeal. the challenge is to the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below whereby the suit for declaration filed by them has been dismissed.2. the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration claiming that they are owners in possession of land measuring 8 bighas 8 biswas 6 biswansis. the details of the land have been given in the plaint. they claimed that defendant nos. 1 and 2 bhajan singh and kirat singh should not dispossess them in execution of decree dated april 6, 1959 passed against defendant no. 3, lal singh.3. the plaintiffs claimed that bishan singh, their father, had purchased the land in dispute from the original owners through various sale deeds and came into possession of the same as owners on the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds. earlier, the present defendant nos. 1 and 2, namely, bhajan singh and kirat singh filed a suit on march 6, 1958 for possession of land measuring 2 bighas 14 biswas 3 biswansis against lal singh, who was arrayed as defendant no. 1 bishan singh father of the plaintiffs was arrayed as defendant no. 2 in the said suit. the said defendants filed the aforesaid earlier suit claiming that they were the owners of the aforesaid land on the basis of a sale deed dated may 3, 1951. lal singh the present defendant no. 3 (defendant no. 1 in the earlier suit) chose not to appear and was proceeded against ex parte in that suit. however, a written .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 03 2004 (HC)

illyas and ors. Vs. Tallok Chand and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-03-2004

Reported in : AIR2005P& H94; (2004)138PLR803

hemant gupta, j.1. the plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court whereby suit for declaration and for permanent injunction was dismissed in appeal.2. the plaintiffs have sough declaration inter-alia on the ground that they are entered as mortgagees with possession with respect to the agricultural land measuring 28 kanals 13 marias as detailed in the plaint. an area measuring 14 kanals 15 marlas, i.e. 2338/4516th share in the land measuring 27 kanals 13 marlas has been auctioned by defendants no.l to 4 in favour of the defendant no. 5 on 16.1.1991. the custodian has wrongly been entered as mortgagors of the said share in the suit land. the plaintiffs are also having some share in the suit land but are recorded as mortgagees of the entire land for times immemorial for the last more than 100 years. some or the muslims became evacuees and the share of the said co-sharers came to vest in the custodian and the said share is 2338/4516.3. in the written statement filed on behalf of defendants no. l to 4 it was the stand of the defendants that the suit was mortgaged by the predecessor-in-interest of muslim evacuees vide mutation no. 54 dated 1.8.1908 and decided on 15.8.1908 in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs for rs. 10/-. on migration of the muslims to pakistan in the year 1947 their share automatically vested in custodian under section 4 of the east punjab administration evacuee property act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 2004 (HC)

State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Gian Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-12-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR677

orderviney mittal, j.1. vide a notification dated march 27, 1979 published in the official gazette on april 27, 1979, land measuring 26 kanals 4 marlas situated in village panj graian, district gurdaspur was acquired for a public purpose. the learned land acquisition collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of rs. 9900/- per acre. the claimant-landowner felt dissatisfied and claimed a reference under section 18 of the land acquisition act. the matter was accordingly referred.2. during the course of reference proceedings, the parties led their evidence. a1though the landowner relied upon three sale deeds ex.a1 to ex.a3 but all the aforesaid sale deeds were ruled out of the consideration. while the sale deed ex.a2 was ruled out of the consideration because of the fact that the said sale took place much after the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the act, sale deeds ex.a1 and ex.a3 were ruled out of the consideration because of the fact that the claimant-landowner had failed to place on record the site plan showing the proximity of the land covered under the said sale deeds with the acquired land.3. on the other hand, the respondents has relied upon various mutations only. the learned reference court chose to place reliance upon mutation ex.r3 which pertained to a sale dated february 21, 1978. the average price of the land sold under the said sale deed was rs. 20,800/- per acre. on that basis the learned reference court further held that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 2004 (HC)

Dhan Kaur and ors. Vs. Bant Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-24-2004

Reported in : AIR2004P& H245; (2004)137PLR471

satish kumar mittal, j.1. (24th february, 2004) - this regular second appeal has been filed by defendant no. 1 to 3 against the judgment and decree dated 23.1.1980 passed by additional district judge, sangrur, vide which suit of the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land in question was decreed.2. the dispute in this appeal is about the estate of one sajjan singh. the plaintiffs are the sons of uncle of the said sajjan singh. defendant no. 1 is the sister and defendants no. 2 and 3 are sons of another sister of sajjan singh. defendant no. 4 is the father of the plaintiffs. the plaintiffs were claiming the property of sajjan singh on the basis of a will dated 30.12.1969, whereas defendants no. 1 to 3 claimed the said property on the basis of natural succession.3. the brief facts of the case are that there were two brothers chetan singh and narain singh. narain singh was having two sons, namely gajjan singh and sajjan singh and two daughters, namely dhan kaur and kaki. both the aforesaid brothers were having equal share in the land measuring 305 kanals 17 marlas situated in village sekhuwas. the dispute is about the half share owned by narain singh. the case of the plaintiffs is that on the death of narain singh prior to the year 1956, his half share was inherited by his two sons gajjan singh and sajjan singh. subsequently, gajjan singh also expired in the year 1953 i.e., much before the enforcement of the hindu succession act, .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 2004 (HC)

Hazara Singh and anr. Vs. Faqiria (Deceased) Through L.Rs.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-25-2004

Reported in : AIR2004P& H353; (2004)138PLR603

satish kumar mittal, j.1. this judgment shall dispose of two regular second appeals bearing nos. 1898 of 1985 and 2189 of 1985, r.s.a. no. 1898 of 1985 has been filed by defendant nos. 3 and 4 and r.s.a. no. 2189 of 1985 has been filed by the plaintiffs. in these appeals, the following substantial questions of law are involved.1. whether the alienation made by a co-sharer by way of gift of specific khasra number out of the joint khewat would be an alienation of the share out of the joint land, and in view of the said alienation, the donee will become a co-sharer in the joint khewat?2. whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaring him as owner of the property on the basis of adverse possession of the land belonging to his co-sharer has to prove his title by adverse possession by specifically pleading and proving the complete ouster of the co-sharer as well as the animus possidendi from a particular date?2. the brief facts of the case are that three brothers, namely, biru, ganga ram and bhambhu, were the co-owners in a joint khewat comprising of 269 kanals 6 marlas of land. in the year 1916 two brothers, namely biru and ganga ram gifted 14 bighas 9biswas of land comprising in specific khasra numbers situated in village kamibwala to nanak and nathu, who were their real sister's sons out of their share. this fact is not disputed. defendant nos. l and 2 are the legal representative of the aforesaid nanak and nathu. in the year 1972, some of the land from the joint khewat .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2004 (HC)

Haryana State Through the Chief Secretary to Haryana Government Vs. Ch ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-14-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR564

kiran anand lall, j.1. in this regular second appeal, the appellant-state has challenged judgment and decree dated 9.8.1982 of the learned additional district judge, sonepat vide which he upheld the verdict of trial court decreeing the suit of chander singh plaintiff (since deceased) for possession of the suit land. chander singh having died. dharam pal etc. were substituted as his legal representatives.2. the claim of chander singh, in the suit, was that he had been in possession of the suit land, as a tenant under its previous owner viz, the proprietary body of village purkhas, since kharif 1967, and prior to him, his father was tenant on it since the year 1954. later on, the appellant-state became its owner and mutation was sanctioned in its favour on 31.7.1971. but, possession over it, even thereafter, remained to be his. however, the appellant-state got an application under section 4 of the punjab public premises and land (eviction & rent recovery) act, 1973 (for short 'the act') filed for his ejectment on the ground that this possession over it was unauthorised. the collector, sonepat allowed the application and ordered his ejectment vide order dated 24.7.1974, copy ex.p2. even in appeal filed before the commissioner, ambala division, he remained unsuccessful as the commissioner upheld the order of ejectment. he, thereupon, filed civil writ petition no. 4585 of 1975 for the quashing of orders of the collector and the commissioner, and obtained stay order against his .....

Tag this Judgment!


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