Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 165 results (0.071 seconds)

Feb 05 2004 (HC)

Kuldip Singh and anr. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-05-2004

Reported in : II(2004)DMC628

..... relationship is an unhappy one and beyond repair then the parties acting sensibly separate from each other. if the parties are married they try to reconcile the differences either through mediators, relations or friends. they even attempt conciliation through concealing and iron out their differences. when the differences are deep and there has been much acrimony, one of the parties to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 2004 (HC)

Jarnail Kaur Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-19-2004

Reported in : 2004CriLJ3143

..... , it cannot be said that the petitioner was with the party for demanding dowry from the deceased wife. the complainant in his statement has alleged that 'jarnail kaur who was mediator of harpal kaur told me that we have humiliated them by giving less dowry as compared to dowry given to rachhpal kaur and stated that she will see how my ..... harassed by her in-laws family for putting pressure to bring more dowry. it was also alleged that the petitioner, who is the real mausi of the deceased was a mediator in the marriage and she was also compelling the deceased to bring more dowry. because of the demand of dowry and the harassment, his daughter was coerced to commit suicide ..... no question of asking the deceased to bring more dowry. rather, the petitioner is the real mausi of the deceased. she was only a mediator. the complainant was having grudge against the petitioner because she being the mediator in the marriage and because of the bad relations between both the families, she has been falsely implicated. the learned counsel further submitted that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 2004 (HC)

Surjit Kaur Vs. Nirver Singh (Dead) Through Lrs

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-13-2004

Reported in : AIR2005P& H125; (2005)139PLR696

..... know the name of the person to whom the land had been given on batai. it is also not her case that the land was given on batai through some mediator. otherwise also, it is proved from the record that the appellant was not living with deceased, teja singh. it is also natural that daughter or daughter-in-law, who is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 07 2004 (HC)

Kartar Kaur and anr. Vs. Chhinder Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-07-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR630

m.m. kumar, j.1. this is plaintiff's appeal filed under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the code') impugning the judgment dated 5.10.1984 passed by the additional district judge, faridkot reversing the view taken by sub judge, 1st class, moga in his judgment dated 10.2.1982. the sub judge has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants.2. the facts in brief are that he plaintiff-appellant filed civil suit no. 424 of 29.5.1979 seeking a declaration to the effect that they along with defendant-respondent 1 are owners of 1/12th share of the land measuring 150 kanals 6 marlas which is specified in detail in the heading of the plaint. the plaintiff-appellant namely, (1) kartar kaur asserted that she was widow of the bachittar singh. it was alleged that defendant-respondents 2 to 7 in conspiracy with the revenue patwari had got the mutation of inheritance of bachittar singh entered in their names at the back of plaintiff-appellants. it was further claimed that plaintiff-appellant 2 mohinder singh and defendant-respondent 1 chhinder singh were sons of aforementioned bachittar singh and, therefore, they were claimed to be the sole heirs. it is admitted position that bachittar singh since deceased was owner of l/12th share in the suit land. as defendant-respondents 2 to 7 have got the mutation of bachittar singh entered in their names, a prayer for permanent injunction was also made restraining them from transferring, alienating in any way or .....

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!

Jan 15 2004 (HC)

Gram Panchayat Sangoha Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-15-2004

Reported in : (2004)138PLR664

v.k. bali, j.1. gram panchayat - sangoha in the present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution seeks issuance of a writ of certiorsri to quash order, annexure p-4, dated 19.9.2002 and the mutation, which came to be sanctioned on the basis of the said order. the short order, annexure p-4, that has been impugned by the petitioner-gram panchayat in the present writ petition, reads thus:'on the above subject, gram panchayat sangohi has separated from gram panchayat sangoha in the year 1998. in march 1990, an order was passed under section 111 of punjab gram panchayat regulation, 1952 to partition the total moveable and immovable property of gram panchayat sangoha in equal shares. but since jungle was standing in gau charand of gram panchayat sangoha and some land was kept reserved for brick kiln. therefore,you partition the total land of gau charand of the gram panchayat, sangoha in two equal shares, in the manner that the numbers of gau charand land are given to the village in whose side or near whose area the same is adjoining. treat this as most urgent.'2. in so far as creation of two gram panchayat by way of bifurcation and partitioning the land between the two village-panchayats the land between the two villagepanchayats is concerned, the same is no more in dispute as a civil writ petition challenging the same came to be dismissed way back on 10.7.1991 (annexure r-4/1). the only contention, thus, raised in this writ petition is that, even though, by a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 2004 (HC)

Jamuna Devi Vs. Sarbati Devi Through L.Rs.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-20-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR547

k.c. gupta, j. 1. this appeal has been instituted by the defendant, smt. jamuna devi, against judgment dated 8.5.1990 passed by additional district judge, faridabad, whereby he set aside the judgment and order dated 4.8.1988 passed by sub judge iind class, faridabad, in favour of the appellant and allowed the claim of the respondent-plaintiff and decree for possession in respect of the suit land was passed against the appellant.2. briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff, smt. sarbati devi, and her brother, suraj bhan were owners in possession in equal shares of the agriculture land measuring 78 kanals 13 marlas situated in revenue estate of village ladholi, tehsil ballabgarh, district faridabad. suraj bhan had filed a civil suit against the respondent for declaration to the fact that he be declared as owner of the share of the respondent in the suit land as the respondent had agreed to part with the share by mutual consent. the said suit was decreed in favour of suraj bhan on 17.3.1973 by sub judge 1st class, ballabgarh and in this manner suraj bhan became owner of the whole of the land measuring 78 kanals 13 marlas. it was further alleged that suraj bhan had no concern with smt. champi and her daughter, jamuna devi, appellant and on the other hand, smt. champi had given birth to smt. jamuna devi from the loins of rattan lal.3. it was next averred that smt. jamuna devi never resided with sh. suraj bhan and was not brought up by him. it was further alleged .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2004 (HC)

Lal Chand Vs. Kali Bai and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-21-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR312

hemant gupta, j.1. the defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below arising out of a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent.2. the case of the plaintiff is that her father tola ram had three wives; namely ghanni bai, kishani bai and ram ditti. ghanni bai and kishani bai died issueless. plaintiff and defendants no. 5 lal chand are the children of tola ram from his third wife ram ditti. defendants no. 1 to 4 are the sons of defendant no. 5 lal chand. tola ram and his brother ganesha ram died at the time of partition of the country. in lieu of the land left by ganesha ram in pakistan, defendant no. 5 lal chand was allotted land in village kirawar being the legal heir of deceased ganesha ram. ganesha ram has died issueless. in lieu of the land owned by tola ram in pakistan, land was allotted in village bhurtana to ghanni bai widow of tola ram and defendant no. 5 lal chand in equal shares. after consolidation, the land was allotted to defendant no. 5 lal chand and deceased smt. ghanni bai. the land was jointly owned by ghanni bai and lal chand but lal chand, out of his greed, did not allow ghanni bai to reap the fruits of the land. she filed an application for partition of the land and started living separately. lal chand filed a civil suit no. 203 of 1958 seeking declaration that smt. ghanni bai was not the owner of the land. she had been given the land in lieu of maintenance and that she has no right to get .....

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!

Feb 04 2004 (HC)

Sardara Devi and ors. Vs. Commissioner, Hissar Division and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-04-2004

Reported in : (2004)137PLR628

g.s. singhvi, j.1. in this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing orders dated 15.10.1980 (annexure pi), 25.2.1981 (annexure piii) passed by sub divisional officer (civil), exercising the powers of assistant collector, 1st grade, bhiwani (respondent no. 3), collector, bhiwani (respondent no. 2) and commissioner, hissar division, hissar (respondent no. 1) respectively under the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 (for short, 'the act'), as applicable to the state of haryana.2. late shri kanha ram, of whom the petitioners claim to be the legal representatives, filed a suit on 3.10.1978 in the court of respondent no. 3 with the prayer that he be declared as the owner of land measuring 15 kanals 10 marlas situated in village palwas, tehsil and district bhiwani and mutation no. 1602 dated 15.5.1954 sanctioned in favour of gram panchayat, palwas (respondent no. 4) may be declared as illegal. he claimed that the land in question was in his possession since 1950 and respondent no. 4 had no right over it. the suit was dismissed by respondent no 3 vide order dated 15.10.1980 on the ground that the same was time barred. respondent no. 3 held that the mutation sanctioned in favour of respondent no. 4 could be challenged within 6 years and as the suit had been filed after 24 years, the same was liable to be dismissed. the appeal and revision filed by the present petitioners were dismissed by respondents no. 2 and 1 respectively.3. shri i.s. balhara, learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

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