Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: punjab and haryana Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 174 results (0.037 seconds)

Dec 22 2006 (HC)

Smt. Gurmail Kaur and ors. Vs. Smt. Jaswant Kaur and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-22-2006

Reported in : (2007)146PLR763

ordermahesh grover, j.1. this judgment will dispose of regular second appeal no. 1130 of 1989 as well.2. the plaintiff is in regular second appeal against the judgment of the learned addl. district judge, patiala (hereinafter referred to as the 'first appellate court') dated 31.1.1989 by which the judgment of the learned trial court dated 22.12.1984 was reversed resulting in the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant.3. it would be necessary to advert to the pedigree table depicting the relationship of the parties to the dispute:see pedigree table belowgopalpuranbhag singh ram singh piara singh [email protected] harchand singh issueless and withoutwife on 23.10.1978.gurdev kaur wifeamarjit kaur mukhtiar kaur jaswant kaurwife wife daughterdefendant no. 1.surinder kaur gurmail kaurdaughter daughterdefendant no. 2 plaintiff.4. the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that she is the joint owner of the suit property being 1/3rd share in the land of piara singh whose individual share was 1/3rd in the entire land measuring 467 bighas 5 biswas situated in village dhanaura. it was prayed that the plaintiff-appellant was also entitled to possession of the suit property.5. piara singh whose estate is in dispute was recorded to the owner in possession of 1/3rd share of the agricultural land measuring 467 bighas 5 biswas which was a joint khewat with the plaintiff-appellant and respondents no. 1 smt. jaswant kaur and respondent no. 5 smt. surinder kaur ( .....

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!

Dec 04 2006 (HC)

Ravish Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-04-2006

Reported in : (2007)10VST482(P& H)

rajesh bindal, j.1. the petitioners have approached this court challenging notice dated june 12, 2006 (annexure p10) and summons dated august 25, 2006 (annexure p 11), issued by respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively seeking to recover the amount due against the firm m/s. saraswati rice & general mills, mullana (for short, 'the firm'), as arrears of land revenue, from the partners of the firm.2. the facts, as pleaded in the petition, are that the firm was constituted in the year 1987 by virtue of a partnership deed executed on january 13,1987. respondent no. 4, who was the exclusive owner of land measuring 23 kanals 8 marlas, consisting of khasra nos. 59/9 and 83/22 killa nos. 1, 2, 10.2 and 2 in patti bhagararu-mullana, agreed to contribute the same as her share in the new partnership firm. one of the conditions of the latest partnership deed dated april 1, 1995 entered into between the parties was that no partner shall hypothecate or alienate, in any manner, any property of the firm or raise any loan or create any liability in his/her individual capacity for personal purpose. the firm for the purpose of setting up of the rice sheller raised loan from the haryana financial corporation, for which the mortgage deed was signed by the partners of the firm in its favour on october 18, 1987. in the said mortgage deed, in the schedule of mortgaged properties, it was mentioned as under:schedule aimmovable properties owned and held by the mortgagorsland measuring 23 kanals 8 marlas .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 2006 (HC)

Ravinder Kumar Vs. Narinder Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-01-2006

Reported in : (2007)146PLR577

vinod k. sharma, j.1. present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the learned civil judge (junior division), jagadhari allowing the application moved by the defendant-respondents under order 7 rule 11 c.p.c. directing the petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee on the plaint filed by the petitioner.2. the petitioner herein has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in the properties to the extent given below:a. 1/15 share in the land measuring 93 kanal 10 marias, comprising in khewat no. 27, khatauni no. 421 to 427, khasra no. 42//23, 57//3/1, 8/1/1, 57//8/1/2, 29//l,2 min. 12, 57// 7/1, 29//2 min, 42//24, 29/9, khewat/ khatauni no. 229/429 to 433. khasra no. 28//5/2, 6, 28//5/1, 15//25, 15//16, 14//20, 21.b. 1/20 share in the land measuring 06 kanal 01 marias, comprising in khewat/ khatauni no. 230/434, khas no. 29//10/1, 10/1.both the lands are situated at village bhambholi, h.b. no. 435, tehsil jagadhri, distt. yamuna nagar, as per jamabandi for the year 2000-01, with all rights appurtenant thereto and therein with the corresponding rights in shamlat deh also and the mutation no. 809, dated 21.02.1991 of inheritance of sh. ranjit singh attested in favour of defendant no. 4 on the basis of alleged will dated 29.7.1990 is illegal, non-existent and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and the decree dated 22.01.1992, passed in civil suit no. 28 of 1992 titled as 'shanti bala v. shankutla devi' .....

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 17 2006 (HC)

Rajinder Singh and ors. Vs. Pirthi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-17-2006

Reported in : (2007)147PLR666

s.n. aggarwal, j.1. nagina, respondent no. 3 was the owner of land comprised in khewat no. 64, khatauni no. 203, kila no. 31/77(8-0), 8(8-0), 9(8-0), 10/1(1-16), 13/2 (6-8), as per jamabandi for the year 1981-82. out of this land, nagina sold killa no. 341//8(8-0), 99(8-0), 10/1(1-10) and 13/2(6-8) to pirthi and harkesh respondents vide sale deed dated 7.7.1988 for which mutation no. 815 was sanctioned on 5.9.1988. subsequently, nagina respondent sold killa no. 31//7 (8-0) of khewat no. 64, katauni no. 203 in favour of maan singh (now deceased) (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) vide sale deed 25.4.1989 for a sum of rs. 70,000/-, 1/4th share in tubewell, electric motor etc. was also sold along with it.2. on this, prithi and harkesh respondents filed a suit for possession by way of preemption as co-sharers. maan singh (predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) had filed written statement and contested the suit. additional objections were also pleaded3. issues were framed by the learned trial court.4. in support of their case, pirthi appeared as pw-1. he also proved copy of the jamabandi for the year 1981-82, exhibit p-1, copy of mutation no. 815 mark b and closed the evidence.5. on the other hand, the appellants examined mahavir gupta, deed writer as dw-1, maan singh defendant himself appeared as dw-2. desh raj attesting witness of the sale deed appeared as dw-3. the sale deed was also proved. a copy of the jamabandi and copies of khasra girdawaries were also proved. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 2006 (HC)

Smt. Dhiro Vs. Sadhu Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-15-2006

Reported in : (2007)4PLR11

vinod k. sharma, j.1. this is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned additional district judge, amritsar vide which the learned additional district judge, amritsar was pleased to frame an additional issue and refer the matter back to the learned trial curt to take additional evidence on the additional issue framed and to return the finding on the said issue.2. brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the land in dispute. it was claimed that the plaintiff-respondent was owner of half share of suit land and his brother ghasita singh was owner of half share of suit land. it was also claimed that ghasita singh settled in indonesia in the year 1938 and before leaving india he gave his half share of land to the plaintiff-respondent in a family settlement. it was claimed that ghasita singh was never married and he had no issue. the claim of the defendant-appellant that she was daughter of ghasita singh was denied. it was claimed that ghasita singh was married to one dalip kaur resident of allowal in indonesia but no issue was born out from the wedlock of ghasita singh with dalip kaur. the mutation sanctioned in favour of ghasita singh as sanctioned by the revenue court was also challenged being the outcome of impersonation. it was further claimed that ghasita singh is alive and as the defendant-appellant was threatening to dispossess the plaintiff therefore, suit was filed.3 .....

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!

Oct 26 2006 (HC)

Salwan Properties Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Gian Chand and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-26-2006

Reported in : (2007)145PLR403

vinod k. sharma, j.1. the present revision petition has been filed against an order vide which application of the petitioner for disposal of the suit on the basis of compromise has been declined.2. the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration seeking decree to the effect that plaintiffs along with defendants no. 7 to 10 were the absolute co-owners in joint possession of the land detailed in para no. 1 of the plaint and that the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 15.11.1999 passed in civil suit no. 130 titled dharampal v. jagdish and mutation no. 1442 of 14.6.2002, the lease deed dated 9.9.2002 and mutation no. 1458 of 18.9.2002 are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. consequential relief of injunction was claimed against defendant no. 1 to 6 and 11 restraining them from interfering in their possession with an alternative prayer that if they succeed in taking possession forcibly then the possession be restored to them. during the pendency of the suit the parties had compromised. the copy of the compromise was placed on record as ex.cl. the learned trial court rejected the said application vide order dated 24.5.2006 primarily on the ground that the decree of the civil court can be set aside on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation and in absence thereof no ex-parte decree could be set aside. the petitioner herein filed review petition against the said order the same was also dismissed vide order dated 31.5.2006. the learned trial court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 18 2006 (HC)

Kuldeep Singh @ Kuldeep Dass Vs. Uttam Dass and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Oct-18-2006

Reported in : (2007)147PLR689

mahesh grover, j.1. this judgment shall dispose of the above mentioned three regular second appeals as they are governed by common set of facts.2. briefly stated, the facts arc that one uttam dass claiming himself to be chela sher singh, chela kahan singh filed civil suit no. 75 of 3.2.1986 seeking a declaration to the effect that he is the duly appointed chela of sher singh. in the said proceedings, sher singh and one kuldeep singh were arrayed as defendants. it was, inter alia, pleaded by uttam dass that he was in possession of the land measuring 90 kanals and 5 marlas which is in the ownership of dera udasia rajgarh and that decree dated 18.5.1985 passed in civil suit no. 258 of 2.5.1985 suffered by sher singh in favour of kuldeep singh is null and void. a prayer for grant of consequential relief of permanent injunction was also made seeking to restrain kuldeep singh from alienating the suit land. uttam dass further claimed that he was the duly appointed chela of sher singh in the presence of the panchayat after following due procedure governing udasia sect.3. kuldeep singh, who was one of the defendants in the suit filed by uttam dass, also filed civil suit no. 151 of 7.3.1986 for permanent injunction seeking to restrain uttam dass, sucha singh, paramjit singh, harpal singh, mehar singh, puran singh and sher singh, chela kahan singh (defendants therein) from interfering in his possession over the land in question and from raising any construction thereon. it was pleaded .....

Tag this Judgment!


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