Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2004 Page 4 of about 165 results (0.031 seconds)

Apr 28 2004 (HC)

Kartar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Jaswant Singh (Dead) Through Lrs.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-28-2004

Reported in : (2005)141PLR78

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') against the judgment of reversal dated 18.1.1982 passed by the district judge, gurdaspur. the judgment and decree dated 7.6.1980 passed by sub-judge, ist class, batala was reversed and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent jaswant singh was decreed.2. brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the controversy raised in this appeal are that one pala singh died on 14/15.9.1965. he was survived by his widow kartar kaur defendant-respondent 9, one son atma singh defendant-respondent 10 and five daughters defendant-respondents 11 to 15, namely, balkar kaur, piar kaur, amar kaur, balbir kaur and mohinder kaur. plaintiff-respondent 1 jaswant singh (now represented by his legal representatives) is the husband of balkar kaur daughter of pala singh whose estate is the subject-matter of litigation in the instant appeal. it is further pertinent to point out that kartar singh defendant-appellant is the husband of smt. amar kaur who is defendant-respondent 13 in the instant appeal. the whole controversy in this case relates to the will dated 9.9.1965 ex.p-1 set up by plaintiff-respondent 1 and the will dated 5.8.1963 ex.d-1. the controversy was set to motion by filing civil suit no. 199 dated 14.9.1977 by plaintiff-respondent 1 for possession of land measuring 80 kanals 12 marlas situated in village machhrala, tehsil batala. the claim was founded on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 2004 (HC)

Ravinder Kaur and ors. Vs. Jagmohan Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-04-2004

Reported in : AIR2005P& H56; (2005)139PLR122

ajay kumar mittal, j.1. the dispute involved in this regular second appeal is between the offsprings of two real brothers, namely, piara singh and kaur singh pertaining to their properties situated in two villages, ghudani kalan and ghudani khurd, tehsil payal, district ludhiana. in order to appreciate the controversy raised herein, it is deemed appropriate to notice as to who are the legal representatives left behind by piara singh and kaur singh. the two brothers are said to have expired, long ago even prior to the filing of the suit. savinder singh, jasbir singh, jaswinder singh and sukhbir singh are the sons of piara singh. savinder singh has also died, leaving behind his widow ravinder kaur and two sons-harjinder singh and sukhjiwan singh. on the other side, jagmohan singh, manmohan singh and harmohan singh are the sons of kaur singh whereas avtar singh is the son of aforesaid jagmohan singh.2. a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by savinder singh through his legal representatives i.e. widow ravinder kaur and two sons harjinder singh and sukhjiwan singh (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff-appellants') and the remaining three sons of piara singh, namely, jaswinder singh, jasbir singh and sukhbir singh against three sons of kaur singh, namely, jagmohan singh, manmohan singh, harmohan singh and avtar singh son of jagmohan singh (hereinafter referred as 'defendant-respondents).3. the plaintiff-appellants sought a decree for declaration to the effect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2004 (HC)

Manushya Swajati Kalyan Dharam Samaj Society Vs. Gram Panchayat of Vil ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-28-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR378

nirmal singh, j.1. this appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 28.7.1980 vide which learned lower appellate court partly accepted the appeal and affirmed the decree under appeal passed by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 29.11.1979 with the addition that the defendant- gram panchayat shall have to manage the suit land and to dispossess the plaintiff (appellant herein) therefrom in exercise of the powers vested in it under rule 16(ii) of the punjab holdings (consolidation and prevention of fragmentation) rules, 1949 in due course of law.2. briefly stated, the facts are that the plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit claiming itself to be owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 26 kanals 15 marlas comprised in khewat khatoni no. 466/604 min and 606 rect. no. 16 situated with the revenue estate of village khera sarai. the plaintiff had purchased the said land from the previous owners who were mustarka jumla malkan of the said village vide registered sale deed dated 5.10.1972 for a sum of rs. 6,000/-. the mutation no. 26212 dated 15.5.1974 was also sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff.3. it was alleged that earlier the defendant-respondent filed a suit against the plaintiff in the year 1975, which was dismissed on 10.6.1976. even defendant no. 2 ,(samaj shksha and panchayat officer, hodal) filed an application against the plaintiff under section 13-a and section 7 of the punjab village common lands act, 1961 (for short, ' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2004 (HC)

Balbir Singh Vs. Sarup Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-02-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR430

v.m. jain, j. 1. this regular second appeal has been filed by balbir singh plaintiff against the judgments and decrees of the courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal filed by them was also dismissed by the additional district judge.2. after hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant and perusing the record, i find no illegality in the judgments of the courts below, which may require interference by this court in the present regular second appeal. the plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession of l/5th share of 7/30 share of jit singh in the land detailed in the heading of the plaint. it was alleged that harnam singh was the father of the parties and that he died prior to 1956 leaving behind five sons and two daughters out of which the plaintiffs and the defendants were alive and that after the death of harnam singh, the property was inherited by his five sons out of whom ajaib singh died issueless and his 1/5th share was inherited by his remaining four brothers and two sisters in equal shares. it was alleged that jit singh (another brother) also died intestate and his share in the suit property was to devolve upon the plaintiffs and defendants in equal shares. however, defendant no. 1 sarup singh got mutation in respect of the share of jit singh sanctioned in his own name in connivance with the revenue staff. defendant no. 1 sarup singh contested the suit and it was alleged that balbir singh plaintiff .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 05 2004 (HC)

Hardial and ors. Vs. the Commissioner and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-05-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR825

g.s. singhvi, j.1. the preamble of the constitution of india which was brought into force on january 26, 1950 declares;-'we the people of india, having solemnly resolved to constitute india into a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens.; justice, social, economic and political;liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;equality of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all;fraternity assuring the dignify of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation;in our constituent assembly this twenty sixth day of november, 1949 do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this constitution.' part-iii contains various provisions relating to individual rights which are enforce able by the supreme court under article 32 and the high courts under article 226 of the constitution of india. part-iv enumerates the directive principles of state policy which, though not enforceable by a court of law, are fundamental to the governance of the country and are to be kept in view by the state while framing laws. part iv-a de fines the fundamental duties of the citizens. in a way, that was implicit in the concept of right of one person and corresponding duty of the other has been made explicit in part iv-a of the constitution. article 39(b) lays down that the state shall, in particular, direct its policies towards ensuring that ownership and the control of material resources of the community are so distributed to best .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2004 (HC)

Lakhwinder Kaur Vs. Jarnail Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-26-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR819

hemant gupta, j.1. this order shall dispose of c.r. nos. 6111, 6112 and 6113 of 2002 as all the three revision petitions arise out of same facts i.e. out of execution of judgment and decree in a suit for possession by redemption of land measuring 46 kanals. the objections filed by the petitioners under order 21 rule 97 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code) were accepted by the learned executing court. however, in appeal the same have been dismissed. still aggrieved, the objectors are in revision petition.2. one gurbachan singh since deceased (hereinafter referred to as the decree holder) effected an usufructory mortgage of land measuring 54 kanals 2 marlas in favour of mohinder singh and dalwinder singh for a sum of rs. 20,000/-. the decree holders has sold 8 kanals 6 marlas of land to different vendees who have paid proportionate amount of mortgage i.e. rs. 5000/- to mortgagees and rs. 15,000/- remained as a mortgage amount payable to the mortgagees for redeeming the remaining 46 kanals of land. the decree holders filed a suit for possession by way of redemption on 18.9.1980 which was partly decreed on 25.3.1983 vide ex.dh/5. the appeal filed by decree holders was allowed on 23.7.1986 vide ex.dh/9 and decree for possession by way of redemption of entire 46 kanals of land was granted.3. the decree holders filed a separate suit challenging the exchange deed dated 30.1.1980 allegedly executed between ajaib singh and the decree holders in respect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 2004 (HC)

Prem Singh and ors. Vs. Dharam Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-14-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR334

adarsh kumar goel, j.1. gurdit singh, defendant no. 2 exe- cuted sale deed ex.1 dated 20.7.1993 in favour of defendant no. 1 dharam singh. the appellant-plaintiffs claiming to be coparceners-plaintiff no.l being son and plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 being grand-sons, challenged the sales as being without legal necessity. it was stated that plaintiff no.l earlier filed a suit for injunction against alienation and the same was withdrawn as sale deed was registered and the same was withdrawn as sale deed was registered and the same had to be challenged. gurdit singh had sufficient money in his back account and the amount received by sale, was never utilised.2. defendant no. 1 dharam singh, vendee contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the suit property was not ancestral and sale was for legal necessity as ven- dor was suffering from chronic illness. plea of bar under order 2 rule 2 cpc was also raised.3. the trial court dismissed the suit. it was held that the suit property was acquired by gurdit singh in exchange with wassan singh and was not proved to be ancestral property. plea of bar under order 2 rule 2 cpc was also upheld. as regards legal ne- cessity, it was observed that since suit property was not proved to be ancestral, plea of legal necessity could not be upheld.4. on appeal, findings of the trial court were upheld. the lower appellate court, in para 11 of its judgment, observed that in the previous suit for injunction filed by plain- tiff prem singh, vendor .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2004 (HC)

Puran Singh (Dead) Through Lrs Vs. Harphool Singh (Dead) Through Lrs

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-28-2004

Reported in : (2005)139PLR586

viney mittal, j.1. plaintiff, puran singh having concurrently remained unsuccessful before the courts below has approached this court through the present regular second appeal.2. the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession of 1/2 share of the land in dispute measuring 25 bighas 15 biswas on the ground that the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit land and, as such, was entitled to the possession of the same and the defendants were no more entitled to redeem the land. the plaintiff averred that a registered deed of mortgage dated june 26, 1923 was executed by sant singh and bhagwan singh sons of narain singh whereby land comprised in khasra no. 898 measuring 27 bighas had been mortgaged with possession by them for a sum of rs. 5,705/- in favour of one gokal chand. it was further stated in the plaint that the aforesaid land along with three other khasra numbers 75,875 and 626 all measuring 56 bighas 18 biswas was already under mortgage with possession with aforesaid gokal chand for a sum of rs. 3,087/- ever since 1965 bk. the aforesaid mortgage was executed by sant singh, jiwan singh and bhagwan singh sons of narain singh. later on 30th baisakh 1978 kb (1921 a.d.), the said land was burdened with an additional charge of rs. 900/- by one of the three mortgagors, namely, sant 1980 bk (1923 a.d.) sant singh and bhagwan singh, two of the original mortgagors raised a further charge of rs. 1,718/- and that point of time, however, only one khasra no. 898 .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 14 2004 (HC)

Mohan Singh and ors. Vs. Ishar Singh (Deceased by L.Rs.) and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-14-2004

Reported in : AIR2005P& H79

m.m. kumar, j.1. this is defendants 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. it has been concurrently found by both the courts below that ownership of the suit land was divided between the parties by family partition ex. dw 4/a executed on 25-6-1962 although trial court had declined to accept the document for want of registration. it was further held that the will propounded by defendant-appellant no. 5, shri dhanbir singh was not genuine and the same was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. both the courts have found that it was not validly executed by the testator smt. rajo in favour of defendant-appellant dhanbir singh. the sale deed ex. dw 10/a dated 7-3-1977 executed by the deceased mother of the plaintiff-respondent and defendant-appellant no. 5, smt. rajo through her purported attorney, defendant-appellant no. 5 in favour of defendant-appellant nos. 1 to 4 was not a bona fide transfer for valuable consideration. accordingly it has been held that no protection as contemplated by section 41 of the transfer of property act, 1882 (for brevity 'the 1882 act') could be accorded to them. feeling aggrieved, the defendant-appellants have approached this court.2. data ram who was the owner of the suit land died in january, 1962. he was survived by his widow rajo and six sons namely ishar singh, harcharan singh, gurdial singh, niranjan singh and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 03 2004 (HC)

Swarna Devi and ors. Vs. Mahant Nath Ram Sharma

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-03-2004

Reported in : (2005)140PLR623

nirmal singh, j.1. this is defendants' appeal as the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed by the learned additional district judge, sangrur and the judgment/decree passed by the additional civil judge (senior division), sangrur, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff has been set aside vide order dated 11.3.2000.2. the brief facts of this case are that pandit ralla ram was the father of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. he died on 16.9.1966 leaving behind agricultural land situated at village mehlan, tehsil sunam, and one residential house situated in mandi dabwali, district sirsa and also ornaments and plot no. 12 measuring 1 biswa 9-1/2 biswansis at sangrur. the case set up by the plaintiff was that his father pt. ralla ram executed a valid will dated 2.2.1966 in respect of his moveable and immovable properties. as per this will, his father bequeathed agricultural land situated in village mehlan in favour of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 in equal shares and the ornaments in favour of bhagwanti, mother of the parties. after the death of bhagwanti, the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 will inherit the same in equal shares. the house situated in mandi dabwali was bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 in equal shares with the conditions that in case the gold ornaments were given by bhagwanti in favour any of the her sons, the other son will inherit the house situated in mandi dabwali. the defendant took possession of all ornaments, therefore, as per .....

Tag this Judgment!

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