Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1992 Page 10 of about 885 results (0.019 seconds)

Jan 13 1992 (HC)

Mohan Singh and ors. Vs. Lachhman Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-13-1992

Reported in : (1993)103PLR643

n.k. kapoor, j.1. this is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree of the additional district judge, hoshiarpur, dated 15th may, 1978 by which the judgment and decree of the trial court has been affirmed.2. briefly put, lachhman singh-plaintiff filed suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the property details of which are given in the head-note of the plaint, and further sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession or to get the suit property partitioned. the case of the plaintiff was that he along with the defendants was owner of about twenty years back and since then the parties were in possession of their respective share without any interference from each other. this claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants on the ground that no family partition had taken place between the parties ; that the plaintiff was in possession of more land than his share ; and that there was no passage in the property in dispute to reach the houses of the parties etc3. on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-'1. whether family partition took place between the parties opp2. whether the parties are now in possession of their respective shares falling to their lot on partition ?3. whether there is no proper passage in the land of the defendants opd4. whether the plaintiff has made any improvement on the suit land opp5. relief4. the trial court, on the basis of evidence .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 1992 (HC)

Surjan Singh and ors. Vs. Amarjit Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-27-1992

Reported in : (1993)103PLR749

ashok bhan, j.1. present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) the facts giving rise to the petition are as under :2. plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, to the effect that they are the sole heirs of one mehar singh, now deceased, their real brother, who died widowless and issueless and that the order dated 29th january, 1988 passed by shri h. s. pawar, collector amritsar, in favour of defendant no. 1 regarding the estate of mehar singh deceased was null and void and ineffective qua the right of inheritance of the plaintiffs pertaining to the estate of mehar singh deceased coupled with permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 1 from transferring any part of the property owned and possessed by mehar singh on the basis of the order dated 29th january, 1988 in mutation; no. 2l0, pertaining to the inheritance of mehar singh deceased.3. before the injunction as prayed for was granted in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from transferring the property in dispute, the defendants sold the property. the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs under these circumstances made a statement that in view of the fact that the sale deed had been executed in respect of the suit land, as such the nature of the suit had changed, and, therefore, he be allowed to withdraw the suit with permission to file fresh one on the same cause of action. on this statement having been made by him, the trial .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1992 (HC)

Balwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-08-1992

Reported in : (1993)105PLR107

jawahar lal gupta, j. 1. all the 163 petitions viz. c.w.p. no. 7127, 7916, 7917, 7920 to 7922, 8197, 8500, 8653, 9103, 9202, 9241, 9411, 9631, 9647, 10162, 10416, 10643, 10910, 10926, 11269, 16561, 11875, 11876, 11895, 11915, 12412, 12565, 12569, 12613, 12621, 12641, 12645, 12667, 12795 to 12797, 12775, 13000, 13001, 13004, 13165, 13423, 13548, 13551, 13552, 13740, 13867 to 13869, 141162, 14163, 14066, 14235, 14304, 14332, 14333, 14387, 14419, 14432, 14434 to 14442, 14462 to 14466, 11564, 14713, 14842, 14942, 14942, 15145 to 15192, 15203, 15289, 15409, 15405, 15488, 15610, 15611, 15784, 15894, 15923, 15955, 16066, 16058, 16066, 16070, 16159, 16265, 16680, 16691, 16726 to 16728, 16734, 16817, 16915, 16917, 17010, 17124, 17125, 17154, 17157, 17167 to 17170, 17232, 17332, 17322, 17381, 17505, 17509, 17672, 17676, 17725, 17773, 18016, 18018, 18024, 18049, 18076, 18353, 18406, 18604, 18714, 18792, 18821, 18822, 18917, 19018 and 19173 of 1991, 11544, 14 to 14740, and 14792 of 1989, 15725 of 1990 and 133, 230, 316, 401, 402, 476, 742, 1000, 1006 & 1163 of 1992 can be disposed of by oen common order. in these petitions the vires of section 7 of the punjab village common lands (regulation) act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') have been challenged. since the arguments have been mainly addressed in c.w.p. no. 11269 of 1991, the facts, as stated therein, may be briefly noticed.2. the petitioner is a resident of village neelpur, tehsil rajpura, district patiala. on november 24 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 1992 (HC)

Gulzar Singh and ors. Vs. Smt. Chhinder Pal Kaur Alias Ranjit Kaur and ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-17-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR81

ordera.p. chowdhri, j.1. this revision petition is directed against order dated february 8, 1991, of subordinate judge 1st class, moga, allowing an application under order 1 rule 10 (2) of the code of civil procedure made by respondents 2 to 6 and impreasing them as defendants.2. briefly stated, the material facts are that one but a :singh was the owner of the land in suit besides some other land. on may 27, 1988, he entered into an agreement of sale of the land in suit with one kulwant singh for rs. 1,61,000/- odd. rs. 60,000/- were received as earnest money under the agreement. the sale deed was to be executed in favour of the promisee kulwant singh or his nominees. in pursuance of the agreement, buta singh received the balance amount of rs. 1,01,000/- odd and executed sale deed in favour of the nominees of kulwant singh, namely, gulzar singh etc., petitioners herein, on november 2, 1988. prior to the execution of the sale deed, buta singh suffered a consent decree with regard to the land in suit together with some other land in favour of his wife smt. chhinder pal kaur respondent no. 1, on october 6, 1988. on the basis of the decree, mutation' was sanctioned in the revenue record on november 21, 1988. on the basis of the said entries, chhinder pal kaur executed three sale deeds. the first two sale deeds dated february 15, 1989 and may 11, 1989, were in favour of balwinder singh etc., respondents 2 to 5, and the third sale deed dated may 2, 1990, was in favour of tirloki .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 1992 (HC)

Om Parkash Vs. the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Apr-01-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR97

a.l bahri and v.k. bali, jj.1. the short question for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether authorities under the village common lands act have the jurisdiction to direct ejectment/eviction of om parkash, the petitioner, who was admittedly inducted in the land in dispute under a lease for a period of 10 years on august 6, 1977. the authorities on the basis of copy of jamabandi produced held that the land was shamlat deh and as such vested in the gram panchayat and, thus, obviously after expiry of the period of lease, the possession of the petitioner was unauthorised and directed his ejectment. copy of the jamabandi for the year 1952-53 has been shown, in the column of ownership, the entry is shamlat deh hasab hissa malkiat munderja shajra nasab. this jamabandi does not show that the land was being used for common purposes, as the land was shown to be in possession of the proprietor. a specific question was raised before the authorities concerned that the land did not vest in the panchayat as it was not used for the common purposes. however, since mutation was sanctioned in favour of the gram panchayat showing it as shamlat deh it was taken that the property vested in the panchayat. the approach of the authorities does not seem to be correct. there may be other land vesting in the gram panchayat than that vested as shamlat deh under section '2(g) of the village common lands act. the remedy under section 7 of this act would only be available if the land was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 24 1992 (HC)

Ajmer Singh and anr. Vs. Surjit Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-24-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR189

g.r. majitbia, j.1. this regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court reversing on appeal those of the trial judge and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellants for possession of the suit land.2. the facts :-the suit land was owned by one sahnu ram, who sold the same to bugar singh and others vide sale deed, dated november, 26, 1957 and the latter sold it to the plaintiff-apellants (hereinafter the plaintiffs) vide sale deed dated may 27, 1959. mutation on the basis of the sale deed was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs on january 31, 1962. the plaintiffs instituted the suit for possession on february 3, 1976.the defendant-respondents (hereinafter the defendants) pleaded that their father nek singh was in possession of the suit land since 1950 and on his death they entered into possession of the suit land and had become owners thereof by adverse possession.3. the pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :-(1) whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land opp.(2) whether the defendants have since become owners of suit land by say of adverse possession opd.(3) whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file this suit? opd.(4) relief.4. during the course of arguments at the trial, learned counsel for the defendants had conceded that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit land and issue no. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. under issue no. 2 it was held that the defendants had .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 1992 (HC)

Gurnek Singh and anr. Vs. Gurbachan Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-27-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR205

a.p. chowdhri, j.1. brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that gurbachan singh, respondent no. 1, was owner of 34 kanals 10 marlas of land being 1/2 share of the land described in detail in the suit situated at village nijjran, tehsil and district jalandhar. he made alienation of a part of the land in favour of respondents 4 and 5. the petitioners are respectively the son and wife of said gurbachan singh they instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the said defendant no. 1 from alienating ancestral property without legal necessity and that the alienation already made by him was void and of no effect against the right, tide and interest of the plaintiffs. the suit was contested. by order dated january 5, 1984, subordinate judge 1st class jalandhar, dismissed the suit. aggrieved by the judgment, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal, which is pending before the additional district judge, jalandhar. during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate court, the plaintiff-appellants made an application under order 41 rule 27 of the code of civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the code') seeking to produce the following documents as additional evidence: -(1) certified copy of jamabandi for the years 1979-80.(2) mutation.(3) copy of fard misal haqiat for the year 1958.(4) copy of khatauni ishteinal.(5) copy of the pedigree table2. the application was resisted and by order dated september 28, 1991, the learned additional .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1992 (HC)

Bharat Singh and ors. Vs. Deena

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-03-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR326

a.s. nehra, j.1. this appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-5-1987 passed by the additional district judge by which their appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by trial court dated 10-10-1986 was upheld.2. briefly, the facts of the plaintiffs-appellants' case are that defendant dina had mortgaged his land measuring 9 bighas 18 biswas (after consolidation 47 kanals 13 marlas), as detailed in para no. 1 of the plaint, for a sura of rs. 2,500/- vide registered mortgage' deed dated 8-2-1947 ex. p. i with har kishan, bharat singh and khubi ram, predecessors of the appellants and in this regard mutation no. 235 dated 29-6-1947 was sanctioned. on 23-6-1978, defendant dina had filed an application for redemption of this land before collector, jhajjar, which was accepted on 29-2-1980 and land was ordered to be redeemed on payment of rs. 2,500/- as mortgage money. the plaintiffs have challenged the vires of this order of the collector, jhajjar alleging that the same is void and ineffective and does not affect the rights of the plaintiffs because the said application was illegally entertained by the collector against law. it may be stated here that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff no. 1 har kishan, plaintiff no. 3 ghogri and plaintiff no. 5 sohni had expired and accordingly their legal representatives were brought on the file it is also alleged by the plaintiffs that earlier plaintiffs had filed one suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1992 (HC)

Sukhdev Singh Vs. Harbhajan Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-27-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR366

g.r. majithia, j.1. defendant, doneeappellant, has assailed the judgment and decree of the first appellate court reversing on appeal those of the trial judge and decrteing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession of 1/8 share of the disputed property in this regular second appeal.2. the facts: --sunder singh was the owner of the property in dispute; that he died on july 13, 1973 leaving behind four sons and four daughters ; that he had gifted the suit land vide gift deed, dated june 23, 1973 in favour of his grandson sukhdev singh (herein-after referred to donee defendant) ; that harbhajan singh, one of the sons of the donor, challenged the gift deed in the suit on the ground that it was a forged document and some body impersonated the donor before the sub registrar and that the suit property would devolve upon all the natural heirs of the deceased. the suit was resisted by the donee-defendant. he maintained that sunder singh deceased executed a valid gift deed in his favour for the services rendered by him.3. from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: --1. whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in suit as heir of sunder singh deceased opp2. whether valid gift has been executed in favour of the defendant no. 1 by sunder singh deceased if so, to what effect opd3. whether defendant no. 1 is in possession of the property in dispute by virtue of gift deed executed in his favour opd4. whether the suit in the present form .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1992 (HC)

Smt. Mam Kauri Vs. Smt. Lachmi Devi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Feb-25-1992

Reported in : (1992)102PLR657

n.k. kapoor, j.1. this is plaintiff's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the courts below vide which her suit for declaration was dismissed.2 shrimati mam kauri, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that her mother shrimati ratni who owned 105 kanals 14 marlas of land as per details given in the plaint, gave to her by means of oral will in the presence of the parties and other respectable of the village and even since then, she is in possession of the suit land as its owner. the plaintiff further averred that the defendants executed affidavits on 9.12.1958 to the same effect and admitted the factum of oral will made by shrimati ratni in her favour.3. shrimati sajna devi and shrimati birja devi defendants con- tested the suit and filed written statement. both the defendants denied that they have given up their claims in the suit land. as regards their signatures on affidavits, it was alleged that the same were pro- cured by misrepresentation. the defendants further averred that mutation in respect of the land left by their mother shrimati ratni has already been sanctioned in favour of four sisters namely plaintiff and the defendants in equal shares.4. on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues :-1. whether the plaintiff is the sole owner of suit land as alleged ?2. whether the talak namas, if any, have been got executed from the defendants by misrepresentation opd.3. whether the suit has not been .....

Tag this Judgment!


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