Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 156 results (0.047 seconds)

Feb 28 2005 (HC)

Satish Kumar Singal and ors. Vs. Jagdish Chander Singal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-28-2005

Reported in : (2005)140PLR481

..... applied to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that there is no written agreement of arbitration attracting the provisions of arbitration act. a mere reference to the mediation of a third party during the pendency of the appeal filed by the defendant-respondents against grant of interim order passed by the learned civil judge would not amount to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 2005 (HC)

Naurang and ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-06-2005

Reported in : 2(2006)DMC363

..... bills and receipts showing that they had been spending money for treatment of giarsi devi, after the occurrence.7. there is statement of pw-5 lado who had acted as mediator for the marriage of giarsi devi with naurang singh accused. she had stated that some time after occurrence giarsi had come to her and shown injuries on her hand stating .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2005 (HC)

Malkhan Singh and anr. Vs. Deep Chand and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-19-2005

Reported in : (2005)140PLR530

m.m. kumar, j. 1. this is plaintiffs second appeal filed under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the code') challenging concurrent findings of f acts recorded by both the courts below. a short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the findings recorded by the courts below on the issue concerning identity of land are vitiated on account of categorical documentary evidence in the form of mutation ex.pw9/a which clearly establishes the identity of the suit land.2. brief facts one jaggan was own and in possession as co-sharer/joint owner of the land to the extent of 1/2 share bearing khewat no. 11-12 khatoni no. 17-18, rect. no. 116(013) ghir mumkin abadi and khewat no. 10 khatoni no. 14, rect. no. 117(1-3 marlas) situated in village mandhewali tehsil ballabgarh. he had a son named khacheru. jaggan suffered a judgment and a decree in his favour on 30.10.1980 (exs.p.3 and p.4). the judgment and decree exs.p.3 and p.4 led to sanction of mutation in favour of the son, khacheru which is ex.p.6. subsequently jaggan again suffered a judgment and decree exhibits p.8 and p.9 dated 20.9.1984 in favour of defendant-respondent deep chand which led to the sanctioning of mutation in his favour being exs.pw9/a dated 2.12.1988.3. on the basis of his right which accrued from the judgment and decree exs.p.3 and p.4 dated 30.10.1980 khacheru executed a sale deed and a perpetual lease deed for 99 years in favour of the plaintiff-appellants which are .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 02 2005 (HC)

Bhano Vs. Jarnail Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-02-2005

Reported in : (2006)142PLR125

jasbir singh, j.1. appellant (plaintiff) claiming 7/20th share, filed a suit for joint possession in land measuring 177 kanals 8 marlas, description of which was given in heading of the plaint. she also prayed that decree for possession of house by way of partition of 3/5th share be also passed in her favour. it was further prayed that decree of permanent injunction be issued in her favour, restraining the respondents (defendants) from alienating, the land, in dispute, to the extent of her share.2. in plaint, she has stated that she is widow of baggu s/o jagram, who was the owner in possession of 1/2 share in the land measuring 105 bighas 9 biswas. he died on 15.6.1959.mutation of inheritance of his estate was sanctioned in favour of the appellant, tej kaur daughter, karnail singh, labh singh, jarnail singh his sons, in equal shares vide mutation no. 2731 dated 20.4.1960. thus, the appellant had become owner to the extent of 1/10th share in the suit land. during consolidation in village bhutal khurd in the year 1960-61 land measuring 177 kanals 8 marlas was allotted in lieu of 105 bighas 9 biswas, earlier owned by shri baggu. about twenty years back, jarnail singh son of baggu had died issueless and unmarried, his land was to be inherited by the appellant being his mother. in this manner the appellant had become owner to the extent of l/5th share. however, respondents tej kaur, labh singh (since deceased) and karnail singh respondents, in connivance with the revenue officials .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 2005 (HC)

Sohna Ram Vs. the Director of Consolidation of Holdings and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-10-2005

Reported in : (2006)142PLR129

rajive bhalla, j.1. the petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 7.11.1985 passed by the director, consolidation of holdings, punjab, chandigarh.2. a brief narrative of the facts would be appropriate.3. lal singh, respondent no. 2, was joint owner of 1/72 share out of land measuring 142 bighas 18 biswas, situated in nabha city. consolidation proceedings commenced in the year 1958-59. vide registered sale deed dated 23.1.1961, the petitioners purchased the aforesaid land. vide order dated 2.5.1962, the assistant collector, iind grade, nabha, sanctioned mutation no. 1625, in favour of the petitioner. as consolidation proceedings were pending, the petitioner approached the consolidation authorities to reflect his ownership in the revenue record. the revenue record was prepared reflecting the petitioner as owner of the 10 kanals and 17 marlas of land. consolidation proceedings concluded in the year 1962.4. 22 years thereafter on 3.9.1984, lai singh filed a civil suit in the court of additional senior sub judge, nabha, praying for a declaration that he was owner of 1/72 share of land comprised in khewat no. 6, khatta no. 601, as detailed in the plaint. lal singh pleaded that after 1962-63, his name, as a co-sharer had been erroneously deleted from the revenue record but as he continued to be owner in possession of the aforementioned land, the revenue record be rectified to reflect his ownership. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 2005 (HC)

Sheela Devi and ors. Vs. Lal Chand and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-10-2005

Reported in : (2006)142PLR379;

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 fact recorded by both the courts below holding that the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for declaration deserved to the decreed in their favour because babu ram and father of the plaintiff-respondents constituted a joint hindu family with them and out of the suit land 1/5th share was separate property of babu ram and 4/5th share was ancestral property in the hands of babu ram qua the plaintiff-appellants. 2. the case of the plaintiff-respondents as pleaded before the courts below is that babu ram son of tulsi ram was recorded as owner in possession of the suit land in the jamabandi for the years 1982-83 ( and 1987-88 (ex.p2). he died inter-state and was survived by his two sons lal chand and sohan lal who are the plaintiff-respondents and three daughters sheila devi, usha devi and baby who are the defendant-appellants. after the death of babu ram, the assistant collector 1st grade samana had sanctioned mutation no. 5126 with respect to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and the defendant-appellants in equal shares by an order dated 17.5.1989 (ex.dl). the plaintiff-respondents namely lal chand and sohan lal who are sons of babu ram filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners to the extent of 12/15th share in the suit land and mutation in favour of the plaintiff- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 2005 (HC)

Chanan Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner Appeals-i and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-27-2005

Reported in : (2005)140PLR103

satish kumar mittal, j.1. in this writ petition, petitioner chanan singh has challenged the orders dated 25.9.2000, 25.6.2001, 19.6.2002 and 30.1.2003 passed by the assistant collector, 1st grade, district collector, commissioner and financial commissioner, appeals-1, punjab, respectively, vide which the afore-said authorities have declined to sanction the mutation of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner, which he had purchased by registered sale deed dated 24.9.1993, on the ground that the said sale deed was of specific khasra numbers and the possession of the land has not been transferred to the petitioner. 2. the brief facts of the case are that one smt. balbir kaur was co-sharer to the extent of 1/3rd share in the joint land measuring 67 kanals 17 marlas along with her husband and her son. vide registered sale deed dated 24.9.1983, she had sold 3 kanals 10 marlas of land to the petitioner which was less than her share. she had sold the aforesaid land in specific khasra number which was in her possession. on the basis of the said sale deed, the petitioner filed an application before the revenue patwari for entering his name in the revenue record by sanctioning the mutation. the revenue patwari instead of entering the mutation by specific khasra number in accordance with the aforesaid deed, has entered the mutation of a share in the joint holding. 3. respondent no. 5, who was the son of the vendor, contested the said mutation. thereupon, the matter was referred .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2005 (HC)

Mandir Tirath Parashar Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-17-2005

Reported in : (2005)141PLR603

rajive bhalla, j. 1. the petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, filed under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india, prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 30.10.1962 (annexure p-3), 25.2.1963 (annexure p-3a), 8.4.1991 (annexure p-4), 12.10.1993 (annexure p-5), 5.9.2002 (annexure p-10), 14.11.2002 (annexure p-12), 18.12.2003 (annexure p-14) and 20.12.2004 (annexure p-16).2. the facts, as pleaded, are briefly enumerated herein after. the petitioner claims to be a religious and charitable organisation, on the basis of its history and the nature of the temples housed in its complex. mahant shankar gir passed away in january 1951. as there was no clear successor to the mahant, civil litigation ensued between claimants, to the office of mahant. during the course of this litigation, the punjab' security of land tenures act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the punjab act') came into force and the collector agrarian, vide order dated 30.10.1962 (annexure p-3), declared 106 standard acres 10-1/2 units as surplus, which was reviewed, vide an order dated 25.2.1963 (annexure p-3/a), declaring 107 standard acres 10-1/2 units as surplus. in these proceedings, the petitioner was represented by one hardwar gir. meanwhile, the haryana ceiling of land holdings act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the haryana act') came into force.3. the petitioner, through hardwar gir, filed c.w.p. no. 4424 of 1985, praying for exemption from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 2005 (HC)

Banta Singh Vs. Karnal Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-25-2005

Reported in : (2006)142PLR296

m.m. kumar, j.1. this is plaintiffs appeal, filed under section 100 of the civil procedure code (for brevity 'the code'), challenging the view taken by the learned lower appellate court, kurukshetra, holding that the judgment and decree dated 2.6.1990 passed in civil suit no. 381 of 1990, in favour of defendant no. 1 kartar kaur (now represented by respondent nos. 1 and 2) did not suffer from any legal infirmity and the same could not be set aside. it has further been held that the plaintiff-appellant was absolute owner of the suit land and in his hand, the suit land was not ancestral in character qua the other co-parceners. the learned lower appellate court has also held that the judgment and decree dated 2.6.1990 passed in civil suit no. 381 of 1990 did not require registration, as the same was based on pre-existing rights of defendant no. l.2. the dispute raised in the present proceedings is related to the property of one ram kishan @ shiv charan singh. a small pedigree table would render assistance in understanding the controversy:-bhagwan singh|i ram kishan alias shiv charan singh|__________________________________________________| | |banta singh rattan singh ujjagar singh(plaintiff) (defendant no. 2)3. the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendant no. 1 kartar kaur, to the effect that the judgment and decree obtained by defendant no. 1 from his brother rattan singh-defendant-respondent no. 3 is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 2005 (HC)

Parkash Kaur and ors. Vs. Satta and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-29-2005

Reported in : (2006)142PLR474

m.m. kumar, j.1. this is plaintiffs appeal filed under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the code') against concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below repelling their challenge to the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 26.5.1981 passed against them. the legal question which has been considered by both the courts below is whether the ex-parte decree could be challenged by way of filing a separate suit or the only remedy of the plaintiff-appellants was either to file an appeal under section 96 or an application under order ix rule 13 of the code. the afore-mentioned question has been answered by both the court below against the plaintiff-appellants holding that a suit was not competent to challenge an exparte-decree particularly when the plaintiff-appellants were party to the earlier exparte decree.2. brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit no. 534-1 dated 29.1.1990/9.3.1999. the principal challenge in the civil suit was that the defendant-respondents 1 to 4 (represented by their had obtained an ex parte judgement and decree from the civil judge on 26.5.1981 without apprising the civil court the true and correct facts. according to the plaintiff-appellants, defendant respondents had obtained a decree by mis-representating the order dated 12.4.1967 passed by the collector in favour of the defendant-appellants on the application made by the defendant- .....

Tag this Judgment!

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