Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2006 Page 3 of about 174 results (0.069 seconds)

Mar 10 2006 (HC)

Joginder Singh and ors. Vs. Narinder Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-10-2006

Reported in : (2006)143PLR414

hemant gupta, j. 1. the defendants are in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial court on 19.5.2004, whereby the amendment sought in the written statement was declined.2. the estate of one parkash kaur is in dispute she died on 16.12.1980 leaving behind her husband balwant singh, son baljit singh and daughters narinder kaur and salwinder kaur. mutation of estate of parkash kaur was sanctioned in favour of her husband balwant singh allegedly on the basis of will dated 21.11.1980. though the said order of sanction of the mutation was set aside in appeal but balwant singh has suffered a consent decree in favour of his son baljit singh. one of the daughters i.e., narinder kaur, has filed the present suit for joint possession claiming l/4th share of the suit property. in the said suit balwant singh and baljit singh were impleaded as defendants. even before filing of the written statement, balwant singh died. in the written statement, filed by baljit singh, no reference was made to the will dated 21.11.1980, though reliance was placed on a decree suffered by balwant singh in favour of baljit singh.3. by virtue of the amendment, the defendants want to plead that the order, whereby the mutation sanctioned in favour of balwant singh was set aside, is illegal. the said amendment has been declined on the ground that the legal heirs of baljit singh cannot be permitted to challenge the stand taken by baljit singh.4. after hearing learned counsel for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2006 (HC)

Jagtar Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-09-2006

Reported in : (2006)143PLR571

n.k. sud, j. 1. this writ petition is directed against the order of the financial commissioner (appeals-ii), punjab, chandigarh dated 25.10.2005 (annexure p-5), whereby revision petition filed by respondent no. 2 against order dated 26.05.2004 passed by the commissioner, patiala division, patiala, has been allowed.2. jeetpal singh @ ajit pal singh son of the petitioner was murdered for which a criminal complaint against respondent no. 2, who is the wife of the deceased, was filed. it was alleged that murder had been committed by her and her family members. the mutation of the property in respect of the deceased was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner being the mother of the deceased and respondent no. 2 being his wife in equal shares. petitioner filed an appeal before the collector against sanction of mutation in favour of respondent no. 2 on the ground that since she was charge-sheeted for the murder of her husband, she is not entitled to succeed to his property. the appeal was dismissed by the collector vide order dated 20.5.2003. the petitioner filed a revision petition against the order of the collector before the commissioner, patiala division, patiala which was allowed vide order dated 26.5.2004 holding that since respondent no. 2 had committed murder of ajit pal singh, she was riot entitled to his estate by way of inheritance in respect of his property. against the said order, respondent no. 2 filed a further revision before the financial commissioner (appeals-ii), .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 17 2006 (HC)

Tara Wanti and anr. Vs. Shanti and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-17-2006

Reported in : (2007)146PLR537

mahesh grover, j.1. this is the defendants' appeal filed in the year 1997. it has been called out twice, but no one came present on behalf of the parties. since the matter is old, it is being taken up for decision.2. smt. shanti, present respondent no. 1, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of the land which had been fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. it was pleaded that one harpat was owner in possession of this property to the extent of 1/4th share and he died leaving behind him respondent no. 1 as the sole legal heir. consequently, she inherited this property and continues to be the owner in possession of the same. it was further pleaded that respondent no. 1 had obtained the copy of the jamabandi with an intention to sell her share and it was at that time, that she came to know that after the death of harpat, karma had got a mutation sanctioned in his name in respect of this property and thereafter, it was sanctioned in the name of chunni and after her death, it was sanctioned in the names of the appellants i.e. tarawati and thambu. it was in this background that respondent no. 1 sought a declaration to the effect indicated above.3. the appellants, who were defendants nos. 1 and 2, filed joint written statement and denied the allegations of respondent no. 1. it was pleaded that harpat had no issue at the time of his death and, therefore, his share was rightly mutated in favour of karma and after his death, in favour of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2006 (HC)

Ram Kumar and ors. Vs. Madan Lal Tyagi

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-28-2006

Reported in : (2006)144PLR521

vinod k. sharma, j.1. this order will dispose of civil revision no. 5866 of 2005 and civil revision no. 5867 of 2005 involving common question of law and facts. however, for facility of reference, facts have been taken from civil revision no. 5866 of 2005.2. the facts leading to the present revision are that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit challenging the validity of registered will dated 5.10.1972 in favour of petitioner-defendant no. l. the plaintiff-respondent field an application under order 6 rule 17 read with order 1 rule 10 of the code of civil procedure for amendment of plaint in order to challenge the decree dated 20.7.1991 passed against petitioner no. 1 and in favour of petitioner nos. 3 to 5 and also sought pleading (impleading ?) of petitioner nos. 3 to 5 in the suit. the aforesaid application was allowed by the trial court. the said order was challenged by the present petitioners by taking a plea that the plaintiff-respondent was an imposer and had no right in the suit land. it was claimed that he was son of sita ram, who was the husband of shakuntala and not the son of kailasho devi as alleged by him. it was further pleaded by the petitioner-defendants that the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession of the suit land. therefore, the suit was not maintainable as no relief of possession was prayed for.3. the plaintiff-respondent thereafter filed another application on 13.1.2004 praying for amendment of the plaint. alongwith this application, another .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 10 2006 (HC)

Chetan Singh Vs. Jarnail Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-10-2006

Reported in : (2006)144PLR781

pritam pal, j.1. this regular second appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') against the judgment and decree dated 25.8.1981 passed by the learned sub judge, ist class, muktsar, whereby he suit for permanent injunction, filed by the plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') was decreed and the same were then confirmed in appeal by the learned first appellate court vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 3.10.1983.2. in nutshell, the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus:3. jarnail singh etc., plaintiffs, had filed a suit for permanent injunction against chetan singh, defendant, restraining him from taking forcible possession of agricultural land measuring 3 kanals 1 marlas, as detailed in the heading of the plaint. the said land was purchased by the plaintiffs through a registered saie-deed dated july 2, 1979 from sarup singh son of gurdial singh. immediately, after the registration of the sale deed, the possession of the suit land was delivered to them (plaintiffs).4. on the other hand, the case of the defendant before the courts below was that he had been in adverse possession over the suit land continuously for the last 15 years and as such, the plaintiffs had lost their ownership rights of the said land. even the possession of sarup singh, vendor, was also denied.5. learned trial court, on the pleadings of the parties, had framed the following .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2006 (HC)

Ram Saran Vs. Deep Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-11-2006

Reported in : (2007)148PLR733

mahesh grover, j.1. a dis-satisfied plaintiff-appellant has filed the present regular second appeal assailing the judgments and decrees dated 16.10.1996 and 9.11.1998 passed by civil judge (junior division), jagadhri (hereinafter described as `the trial court') and additional district judge, jagadhri (hereinafter referred to as `the lower appellate court'), respectively. a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was instituted by the appellant broadly on the averments that he and the respondents were descendants from a common ancestor, namely, jeewana, who had five sons, i.e., chauhal, lakhu, nawaja, kabaj and malji. all the five have since expired. chhaju (respondent no. 3, who has since expired and is now represented by his legal representatives) is the son of chauhal, whereas the appellant is the son of surta son of lakhu. nawaja died leaving behind son-suba. smt. multani (respondent no. 2) is the daughter of nawaja and sister of said suba. kabaj left behind son-rulia (respondent no. 4).2. in question is the estate of suba. according to the appellant, he and the respondents are gujjars by caste and the main source of their livelihood is agriculture and they are governed by customary law prevailing in the states of punjab and haryana in the matter of alienation of the ancestral property. it was averred that the suit land is ancestral and the estate of suba, who died on 16.11.1988 intestate leaving behind no issue, was liable to be succeeded by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2006 (HC)

Surinder Singh Vs. Nasib Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-25-2006

Reported in : (2006)144PLR109

surya kant, j.1. this regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff whose suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the subject property, was decreed by the learned trial court but on an appeal by the respondents, the said judgment and decree has been set aside by the first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.9.2002.2. the dispute pertains to succession to the agricultural land owned by jagir singh. jagir singh, who was real brother of the respondents and uncle of the appellant, died unmarried and issueless on 19.5.1994. there is no dispute that after the death of jagir singh, the mutation for the land owned by him was sanctioned in favour of the respondents and the father of the appellant, in accordance with natural succession on 27.6.1995 and it was sanctioned at the instance and in the presence of the appellants' father.3. however, after a period of more than one year, the appellant came up with the plea that he is the exclusive owner in possession of the subject property, in view of a will executed on 11.5.1994 by the deceased jagir singh, it was claimed that the will was found by the appellant in the truck with which the appellant was employed as a 'cleaner'.4. accepting the genuineness of the will, the civil court decreed the appellant's suit. the learned first appellate court, however, has reversed that finding and has dismissed the suit after observing that the will, ex.p1, is surrounded by more than one .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 2006 (HC)

Jawala Singh Vs. Basta Singh Deceased by L.Rs. and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-22-2006

Reported in : AIR2007P& H123; (2007)147PLR738

orderrajive bhalla, j.1. by way of the present regular second appeal, the appellant impugns the judgment and decree, dated 31-10-1980, passed by the learned additional district judge, patiala, whereby ah appeal, filed by the defendants/respondents was accepted and the judgment and decree, dated 22-7-1976, passed by the learned sub-judge 1st class, bassi was set aside.2. vide judgment, dated 8-12-2000, this appeal was accepted and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, was set aside and the judgment and decree, passed by the trial court, was restored.3. the respondents herein preferred civil appeal no. 1023 of 2002 before the hon'ble supreme court of india. vide order dated 19-9-2005, the hon'ble supreme court of india set aside the judgment of this court, restored the regular second appeal, and remitted the matter to be decided afresh, after formulating necessary questions of law.4. a perusal of the record, as also the impugned judgments, in my considered opinion, raise the following substantial questions of law:(i) whether the judgment and decree, passed by the first appellate court, are perverse for failure to notice the lack of pleadings and evidence in support of the plea of adverse possession?(ii) whether a defendant, raising a plea of possession, with the consent of the true owner, can put-forth a claim of ownership by adverse possession?(iii) whether mere long established possession, is sufficient to accept a plea of ownership by adverse possession?a .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2006 (HC)

Smt. Nando Vs. Sher Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-19-2006

Reported in : (2006)144PLR36

hemant gupta, j.1. the defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below hereby a suit for declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit property by virtue of will date 4.7.1981 executed by juglal was decreed.2. juglal was the owner of certain land situated within the revenue estate of village dighawa jattan and mohmad nagar, teshil lobara, district bhiwani, said juglal died in 1995. the plaintiff relies upon registered will dated 4.7.1981. the challenge in the suit was to the mutation sanctioned in favour of defendant-appellant on the basis of her being his legally wedded wife. it is the case of the defendant-appellant that she was married to udmi, brother of juglal, but after the death of udmi, she contracted kareva marriage with juglal.3. both the courts below have found that the stand of the defendant that she contracted kareva marriage with juglal has not been proved. in fact sont has appeared on behalf of the defendant to prove such fact.4. it has also been found that will dated 4.7.1981, exhibit p1, is proved to be executed by the testimony of pw9 amar singh and scribe pw6 chandersain. shri hardul singh, the then registrar, loharu, who has registered the will, has also been examined as pw8, and, thus, a finding was returned that the plaintiff is able to prove the due execution of the will and that he is a legatee.5. learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the will is in respect of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2006 (HC)

Gurdial Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-31-2006

Reported in : (2006)144PLR276

mahesh grover, j.1. by this judgment 8 civil writ petitions bearing nos.7965, 8407, 8443, 8451, 8531, 8542, 9750 and 10018 of 2004 are being disposed of as they are directed against the common orders of the commissioner dated 19.2.2004.2. the facts as extracted from the pleadings of the parties are that the gram panchayat had filed a petition under section 7 of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 (hereafter known as 'the act') against the petitioners claiming that they are the unauthorised occupants of the land and deserve to be evicted. the petitioners in their written statements raised a counter claim that the petitioners were in fact the owners of the property in dispute as per the revenue record and the land in dispute is 'burd baramadgi' (subject to river action) and,therefore, it comes within the definition of section 2(g) of the act. it is pleaded that the land which has become shamlat due to the river action or has been reversed as shamlat deh and is entered as pasture, pond or playground in the revenue does not come within the definition of shamlat deh and the panchayat had no concern with the land and consequently all proceedings under section 7 were null and void. in any case, the petitioners pleaded that they had raised the question of title and, therefore the asstt. collector had no power to enter upon the controversy. the asstt. collector after pursuing the pleadings of the parties took cognizance of the fact that the question of title was .....

Tag this Judgment!


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