Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 174 results (0.034 seconds)

Mar 07 2006 (HC)

Smt. Prem Lata Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-07-2006

Reported in : (2006)144PLR150

ashutosh mohunta, j.1. defendant no. 1 smt. prem lata has filed this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india for setting aside the order dated 5.6.2003 passed by the civil judge (junior division), jagadhri, whereby her application for seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the will in question has been dismissed.2. succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that smt. prem lata got inherited immovable property situated in village jathlana, district yamunanagar, as well as one house consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom and one store, on the basis of the will dated. 5.9.1990 executed by her mother smt. chaman devi and mutation no. 4579 was sanctioned in her favour on the basis of the order dated 2.2.1995 passed by the assistant collector, 1st grade, jagadhri. smt. kamala devi plaintiff made a challenge to the will dated 5.9.1990 allegedly executed by her mother as well as the mutation sanctioned in favour of her sister smt. prem lata on the basis of the order dated 2.2.1995 passed by the assistant collector, 1st grade, jagadhri. the suit was contested by smt. prem lata defendant by filing a detailed written statement pleading therein that her mother smt. chaman devi had executed the will dated 5.9.1990 in her favour and the a.c., 1st grade, jagadhri, had sanctioned the mutation in her favour after ascertaining the genuineness of the will in question and the original will was tagged with the case file of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2006 (HC)

Baldev Singh and ors. Vs. Sukhdev Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-17-2006

Reported in : (2006)143PLR680

satish kumar mittal, j.1. plaintiffs baldev singh, hardev singh and sher singh have filed the instant appeal against the order dated 14.4.2003 passed additional district judge, sangrur whereby after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, the mater has been remanded back for denovo trial after complying with the mandatory provisions of order 32 rule 3 c.p.c. governing the appointment of a guardian for the minor defendants.2. in this case, a suit for possession, declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants challenging the consent decree dated 17.10.1992 passed in civil suit no. 672 titled as 'sukhdev singh and anr. v. chinto,' which was suffered by smt. chinto in favour of defendant no. 1 sukhdev singh and balwinder singh, the predecessor of defendants no. 2 to 5, and mutation sanctioned on the basis of the said decree as well as the sale deed executed by balwinder singh subsequently. since balwinder singh had died before institution of the suit, therefore, his legal representatives i.e. shiam kaur, mother of balwinder singh, amarjit kaur, his widow, rinku, his minor son and rajo, his minor daughter, were impleaded as parties. the aforesaid two minors i.e. defendants no. 4 and 5 were impleaded under the guardianship of their mother amarjit kaur. it is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant no. 1 sukhdev singh and aforesaid baldev singh were not related to smt. chinto and the said decree was obtained by fraud and impersonation .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 2006 (HC)

Yuv Raj and ors. Vs. Balwant Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-16-2006

Reported in : (2006)144PLR208

nirmal yadav, j.1. the challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 19.9.2005 vide which application moved by the petitioners-defendants for rejecting plaint on the ground of deficiency of court-fee has been rejected.2. the facts, is not brief, art that respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of sale-deed dated 21.7.2004 as well as mutation no. 423 dated 30.9.2004 in favour of defendant no. 2 being null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and further seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. the petitioners-defendants filed an application in the said suit seeking rejection of plaint on the round that proper-court-fee had not been affixed. the consideration for sale-deed is stated to be rs. 2,92,500/-. however, the market price of the land is not less than rs. 8 lacs. hence the plaintiffs are to affix the court-fee as per the market price of the land. it is pleaded that respondents-plaintiffs have affixed only rs. 25/- as court-fee which is not properly valued. the application moved by the petitioners-defendants was opposed by the respondents-plaintiffs on the ground that they have sought cancellation of a sale-deed being void, ab initio on the ground that no such transaction took place on the alleged date. the respondents-plaintiffs further stated that market value of the property was only rs. 10,000/- in the year 1994 and its .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 2006 (HC)

Gaurdev Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat of Village Pabala and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-07-2006

Reported in : (2007)145PLR286

vinod k. sharma, j.1. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8-06-2006 passed by the additional district judge, kaithal, vide which the appeal filed by respondents no. 1 and 2 herein against the order dated 27-04-2006 passed by the learned additional civil judge (sr. divn.) kaithal, granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioners, was allowed and the application moved by the petitioners under order 39 rules 1 & 2 of the code of civil procedure was dismissed.2. the suit was filed by the petitioner and respondent no. 3 for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents under order 1 rule 8 cpc on the allegation that the suit land detailed in para 1 of the plaint was under the ownership of the plaintiffs-petitioner being proprietors/biswedars of village and, therefore, they had got every right in the suit land. it was also pleaded that they had got share in the suit land being jumla malkan bah hakrast-rakba and they had the interest in the suit land.3. as the proprietors are numerous in number, the suit was filed in representative capacity.4. the case set up was that the suit land was mutated in favour of gram panchayat, pabala, vide mutation no. 317 which was sanctioned on 4- 07- 1992 by virtue of act no. 9 of 1992, but the said act was struck down by this court in the case titled as jai singh v. state of haryana (2003-2) plr 658 and it was held by this court vide order dated 13-3-2003 that the land which was reserved for common purposes shall vest in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2006 (HC)

Ajmer Singh Vs. Dharam Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-01-2006

Reported in : (2006)143PLR25

hemant gupta, j.1. the plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below whereby their suit for possession by way of pre-emption was dismissed.2. one sumer singh sold 12 bighas 14.3/4 biswas of land to dharam singh, vendee in r.s.a. no. 2972 of 1979, vide registered sale deed dated 24.3.1974. similarly, another portion of land measuring 12 bighas 14.3/4 biswas of land was sold to arjun singh on 24.3.1974 i.e. subject matter of challenge in r.s.a. no. 2971 of 1979. the-plaintiffs have sought to pre-empt the sales made on 24.3.1974 in favour of dharam singh and arjun singh on the ground that the plaintiffs are co-sharers in the joint khata and, thus, have a superior right over the vendee who is a stranger.3. both the suits were consolidated and were dismissed. both the courts have decided the question of plaintiff being a co-sharer in the context whether the sale is of a share in a the joint khata or of specific khasra number. it was held that the sale is of specific khasra number which, according to the recitals in the sale deed, has come to the vendor under private partition and the vendees have acquired right and title under the sale only to the extent of said specific khasra numbers and, therefore, the vendees have not become co-sharers in the joint khata. it was, thus, concluded that the plaintiffs are co-sharers in the suit land and have no preferential right to pre-empt any of the two sales in question.4. the appeal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 2006 (HC)

Devi Sarup and ors. Vs. Smt. Veena Nirwani and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-13-2006

Reported in : (2006)144PLR454

s.n. aggarwal, j.1. banu mai alias banu ram (in short banu mal) was the original owner of the suit land. he had executed a will in favour of his daughter jeewani alias munni devi (in short munni devi) on 14.4.1937 for the suit land. but, subsequently, he had executed a will on 27.3.1943 in favour of raghbir singh, respondent no. 29 (predecessor in interest of the present petitioners) who was his collateral from the third degree. however, the said will was for the life time of said raghbir singh and after his death, the property was to revert back to the legal heirs (respondent nos. 1 to 6) of munni devi daughter of banu mal. however, raghbir singh got mutation no. 1427 entered in favour of his wife smt. kesho devi, his son devi samp (petitioner no. 1) and son's wife smt. maya devi (petitioner no. 2) on 26.2.1954 on the basis of oral hibbanama (gift) allegedly executed by babu mai for the land measuring 835 kanals 7 marlas. the said mutation was sanctioned on 2.3.1954. said babu mal died on 14.11.1954.respondent nos.7 to 28 are the subsequent purchasers.smt. veena nirwani, respondent no. 1 (daughter of munni devi) filed a civil suit in the year 1989 against raghbir singh, his wife smt. keso devi, his son devi sarup (petitioner no. 1) and his daughter in law maya devi (petitioner no. 2) for declaration, possession and permanent injunction for the suit land and challenged mutation no. 1427 dated 2.3.1954 in favour of kesho devi, devi sarup and maya devi on the basis of alleged .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2006 (HC)

Mst. Hans Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-12-2006

Reported in : (2006)144PLR336

hemant gupta, j.1. the plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court whereby her suit for declaration challenging the order passed by the collector on 19.3.1963 declaring the suit land as surplus without considering the claim of the plaintiff having 1/3rd share in the suit property being wife of late ram kishan was dismissed.2. the plaintiff has pleaded that ram kishan died in the year 1947 leaving behind plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 and 3 as his legal heirs but the mutation of the estate of ram kishan was sanctioned in favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 on 10.6.1952 (exhibit p. 2). the suit was contested by the state primarily on the ground that the order passed by the collector is legal and valid and that the plaintiff was aware of the surplus proceedings. the proforma defendants have filed their objections in the surplus proceedings on 21.10.1959. the suit was also said to be barred by limitation and that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.3. the learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:1. whether the plaintiff is also one of the legal heirs of the deceased ram kishan? opp2. whether the plaintiff also succeeded to the estate of the deceased ram kishan at the time of his death in the year 1947? opp3. whether the mutation of inheritance pertaining to the estate of ram kishan was wrongly sanctioned in the exclusive .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2006 (HC)

ismail and ors. Vs. Sadiqan and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-17-2006

Reported in : (2007)146PLR732

orderkiran anand lall, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court vide which the judgment and decree of the trial court, were set aside, and the suit of appellants was dismissed.2. as per facts given in the plaint, smt. ghunni was owner of 1/8th share in the land measuring 68 kanals 6 marlas, detailed in para no. 3 thereof. a private partition, later, took place between the co-sharers, wherein land measuring 8 kanals 6 marlas, comprised in khasra no. 2297/6-18, 2286 min/1-8, fell to her share. a memorandum with regard thereto was brought into existence, on 13.11.1980, and report no. 233 dated 24.11.1981 was also got entered in the record of the patwari halqa. after sanction of mutation no. 10577, the factum of partition found place in the jamabandi for the year 1983-84, also.3. smt. ghunni died in the year 1983, leaving behind three sons, abdulla, abdul rehman, and ismail, and three daughters, aishan, halima and zubedan. in the suit, ismail and aishan were plaintiffs, abdul rehman and his wife, sadiqan were the contesting defendants, and abdulla, halima, and zubedan were proforma defendants. the case of the plaintiffs was that sadiqan colluded with the revenue authorities and got a mutation, bearing no. 10664, sanctioned in her favour, on the basis of an oral gift, allegedly, made by ghunni, in her favour, in respect of the suit land. ghunni, according to the plaintiffs, never made any such gift in favour of sadiqan nor she .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 2006 (HC)

Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-06-2006

Reported in : (2007)4PLR638

ashutosh mohunta, j.1. the dispute in the present petition is with regard to the sanctioning of mutation of inheritance of hazoor kaur. the petitioners as well as respondent nos. 4 to 6, are brothers and sisters. respondent no. 4 claimed that the mutation of inheritance of his mother hazoor kaur be made in his favour on the basis of a registered will dated 1.9.1993. this was objected to by respondent nos. 5 and 6 as well as the present petitioners, who also claimed that hazoor kaur had executed a registered will dated 27.5.1991 in favour of her both sons i.e. harbans singh and lehmber singh. the validity of the wills are under challenge before the civil court.2. the commissioner had ordered that till a decision is taken by the civil court, the matter regarding the mutation should be kept in abeyance. this order has been set aside by the financial commissioner, vide order dated 20.01.2004 with direction that none of the parties will alienate the suit property involved in inheritance.3. after going through the petition, we are of the considered opinion that as the matter has already been pending before the civil court, wherein the validity of the wills are under challenge, therefore, the sanctioning of the mutation be kept in abeyance. it is further ordered that the petitioners as well as respondent nos. 4 to 6 shall not alienate the suit property involved in inheritance. the civil court shall decide the matter expeditiously.4. the present writ petition is, accordingly, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2006 (HC)

Ram Singh and anr. Vs. Shiv NaraIn and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-14-2006

Reported in : (2006)144PLR254

satish kumar mittal, j.1. the petitioners, who are judgment debtors, have filed this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india for setting aside the order dated 24.7.2004, passed by the additional civil judge (senior division), rewari, whereby they have been ordered to be detained in civil prison for a period of six months and their property has also been ordered to be attached for violation of the decree dated 11.11.1999. it has been further ordered that receiver shall hand over possession of the land to the decree holder-respondent. further, for implementation of the decree, it has been ordered that superintendent of police, rewari shall provide necessary police help to the decree holder to ensure that decree dated 11.11.1949 is not violated by the judgment debtors and the decree holder is allowed to remain in peaceful possession of the land.2. in this case, a decree for permanent injunction was passed on 11.11.1999 restraining the petitioners from interfering in the peaceful possession of the respondent in respect of the land, which was allotted to him vide the partition order. the said decree was challenged in appeal and the same was upheld upto this court. regular second appeal no. 2715 of 2000 filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this court on 15.1.2001.3. when the petitioners violated the said decree, the respondent filed execution application under order 21 rule 32 c.p.c. in the said execution, the petitioners filed objections. it was pleaded by .....

Tag this Judgment!


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