Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-29-1992
Reported in : (1993)104PLR167
jawahar lal gupta, j.1. the suit of the plaintiff appellant for a declaration that the plaintiff has become the owner alongwith proforma defendant nos. 5 to 21 of the land measuring 29 kanals 19 marlas on account of the lapse of time and failure of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage and for injunction restraining the union of india alongwith the three other defendants from allotting the property to any other person having been dismissed by the two courts below, he has corns to this court in the present appeal. . a few facts may be noticed.2. the plaintiff appellant claims that the suit land was mortgaged in the year 1874 by ahmam son of rahim, jimmu and musaddi sons of hukam jiwa son of salu, dara, rana, jaggu and sahu to phulla, balak ram and bakhtawar singh, predecessors-in-interest of the appellant and defendant nos. 5 to 21. a copy of the farad jamabandi in support of this assertion was produced alongwith the plaint. it is further averred that the land having not been redeemed the appellant and other co-mortgagees became the owners in possession as the right of redemption had been extinguished on the lapse of 60 years in 1934. when after the partition of the country in the year 1947, the rehabilitation department instead of acknowledging the right1 of the appellaat and other co-mortgagees entered a mutation in favour of the union of india on july 5, 1975 and even threatened to allot/ auction the property, the plaintiff appellant instituted the suit out of which the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Dec-04-1992
Reported in : (1993)104PLR512
h.s. bedi, j.1. the present revision petition is directed against the order of the additional district judge, faridkot, whereby the application under order 6 rule 17 of the code of civil procedure filed before him by the plaintiff/appellant at the stage of appeal, has been declined. the facts of the case are that the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed a suit against the defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents') for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the certain agricultural land and mutation no. 943 and 1920 of inheritence of rattan singh and decree dated 19.7.1984 in favour of respondents no. 7 and 8 was also wrong and fictitious.2. the following issues were framed by the trial court :-1. whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession to the knowledge of others as owner after the death of deceased rattan singh by way of alleged partition dated 13 8.195? opp2. whether the parties are jats and governed by custom in matters of inheritance opp.3. whether mutations no. 943 and 1980 are void as alleged in the plaint and have no effect on the rights of the plaintiff? opd.4. whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties opd.5. whether the simple suit for declaration is not maintainable opd.6. whether the suit is not within limitation opd.7. whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration prayed for opp.8. whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the permanent injunction prayed for opp .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-05-1992
Reported in : AIR1993P& H149
order1. amar singh plaintiff has challenged in this revision-petition the order of sub-judge 1st class, charkhi dadri, dated november 14, 1990 whereby he rejected an application for passing the decree in accordance with the compromise entered into between the parties to the suit.2. amar singh filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession in equal share of land measuring 22 kanals 6 marlas, being % shares of the total land measuring 60 kanals & marlas, which is in dispute and that defendants nos. 2 to 4 raghbir and others have no concern with the same. further declaration was sought that the sale deed dated march 8, 1985 and mutation no. 487 dated march 9, 1984. in respect of defendants nos. 2 to 4 were illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. during pendency of the aforesaid suit, the parties entered into a compromise and moved the court for passing the decree in accordance thereof. the statements of the parties were recorded. compromise exhibit cx was admitted into evidence. however, the application was dismissed on the ground that the compromise aforesaid required registration under the indian registration act, 1908.3. the approach of the learned trial courtin respect of the applicability of the provisions of the indian registration act, is entirely erroneous. by entering into a compromise, the parties have not either created or extinguished any right in the property. in substance, the claim of the plaintiff stands recognised in the compromise. further more, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-12-1992
Reported in : AIR1994SC1130; 1994CriLJ58
1. there are eight appellants. they along with four others were tried for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 324 read with 149, i.p.c. by the learned second additional sessions judge, azamgarh. all of them were convicted for the said offences and the substantial sentence awarded was life imprisonment. they were also awarded various sentences of imprisonment on other counts. an appeal preferred by all of them was dismissed by the high court. only eight of them filed a special leave petition which was granted by this court. hence this appeal.2. the prosecution case is as follows :the accused dal singhar's maternal uncle left behind five bighas of land at village bhanpur. this land was inherited by the widow of ramjas smt. badaki. accused dal singhar is said to have obtained a fictitious sale deed in his name and in the name of his three brothers from smt. badaki, who on coming to know of it, filed an objection in the mutation proceedings. a suit was also filed for the cancellation of the said sale deed which was pending at the time of the incident. a few days before the date of incident, the appellants along with certain other persons forcibly harvested the barley crop belonging to smt. badaki. this led to a riot and gunshots are said to have been fired by accused dal singhar and others in which the appellants and some others received injuries and a criminal case was registered. on the date of occurrence i.e. 8-4-1974 deceased .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-11-1992
Reported in : 46(1992)DLT483
d.k. jain, j.(1) this revision petition under section 115 of the code of civil procedure (for short the code) is directed against the order dated 25 september 1990 of shri s p. garg, sub judge 1st class, delhi dismissing petitioner's/ plaintiff (termed plaintiff hereinafter) application under order 6 rule 17 of the code seeking amendment of the plaint. (2) the plaintiff, alleging to be an allottee doing business for over twelve years, filed the suit against the respondent-mco for perpetual injunction in respect of stall no. 1 17, dewan hall road, old lajpat rai market, delhi for restraining the mcd from dispossessing or demolishing the said stall otherwise than by due process of law. the suit was instituted on 28 november 1987. written statement on behalf of the municipal corporation of delhi (termed defendant hereinafter) was filed on 3 november 1988. the defendant denied that the plaintiff was allottee or in occupation for the last twelve years or more or had any right, title or interest in the stall in question. instead, the plaintiff was termed as an unauthorised encroacher. on application under order 39 rules 1 & 2 of the code, filed with the suit, the trial court issued notice with ex parte ad-interim stay against his dispossession, which, after hearing on merit was vacated on 5 may 1990. the plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order but the same was dismissed by the first appellate court on 15 may 1990. the plaintiff then moved an application for review under .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-30-1992
Reported in : 47(1992)DLT538; 1992(23)DRJ270
sat pal, j. (1) in this petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the government of india dated 17th october, 1985 (conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 31st january, 1986) wherein it was stated that the government had decided to stop construction of multi - storeyed buildings in new delhi till the master plan for 2001 was finalised. further the petitioner has also challenged the decision of the government of india contained in the letter dated 8th february, 1988 addressed to the then administrator, new delhi municipal committee, new delhi. the commissioner, municipal corporation of delhi and the secretary delhi urban arts commission, new delhi, wherein it is stated that the government of india has reconsidered its earlier decision dated 17th october, 1985 and have now decided that high rise construction in delhi may continue to be regulated subject to compliance with conditions of detailed urban design clearance, fire fighting requirement and requirements under other provisions like the master plan, zoning regulations, building byelaws etc, but which does not permit such high construction in lutyen's bungalow zone. the petitioner has also prayed for a declaration that the plans for construction of multi storeyed residential building over the land of 2, tilak marg, new delhi submitted by the petitioner to new delhi municipal committee (here in after referred to as ndmc ) stood sanctioned and further ndmc and other respondents be directed to deliver the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-06-1992
Reported in : 47(1992)DLT703
p.n. nag, j. (1) this is an appeal under section 39 of the delhi rent control act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') against the appellate order of the rent control tribunal dated 12/02/1987whereby the rent control tribunal has reversed the judgment and order of the additional rent controller dated 2 2/05/1986 and has dismissed the petition for eviction.(2) the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant/petitioner filed a petition in the court of the additional rent controller,delhi under section 14(1)(a) of the act for ejectment of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of rent. the additional rent controller having found that the respondent has not paid the arrears of rent and further that he has not complied with the order passed under section 15(1) of the act,ordered ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question.(3) being aggrieved against this order, the respondent filed an appeal before the rent control tribunal, which was allowed by him and thereby the petition for ejectment of the appellant/petitioner was dismissed.(4) being aggrieved against this order, the present appellant has filed this appeal under section 39 of the act. it may be noticed here that at the relevant time when the appeal was filed, the same was maintainable under section 39 of the act. however, at present the act stands amended.(5) the notice was ordered to be issued to the 'respondent but the respondent did not appear. this court then allowed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-28-1992
Reported in : 48(1992)DLT636; 1992RLR545
santosh duggal, j.(1) the appellant, who is owner/landlady of the demised premises, comprising of drawing-cum-dining room, two bed rooms with attached toilets, kitchen, garage on the ground floor, bed room with attached toilet and servant room above garage on the first floor, built on plot no. d-29, defense colony, new delhi, had sought eviction of the respondent no. i/tenant by invoking the provisions of clauses (e), (d), (h) and (k) of the proviso the section 14(1) of the delhi rent control act, 1958 (for short the act). as per averments in the eviction petition, the tenancy premises formed part of a residential house, and had been let to the respondent for residential purposes, but no one was residing in the premises and further that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of a quarter for residence, and had converted the letting purpose of residential into commerical, by using the demised premises as a show-room of furnishing fabrics .and boutique, without prior and written consent of the landlady, and that this user was otherwise detrimental to the interest of the landlady as she had received notices from d.d.a. threatening action under section 29 of the delhi development act, and the , land and development office also threatened to levy penalty for converting, the user, .and the municipal corporation had threatened to levy additional house tax. besides, it was alleged that the premises were let to the tenant for residence of one ashok kapur, but neither the tenant nor .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-03-1992
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT478; 1992(24)DRJ647a; 1993RLR1
gokal chand mital, c.j. (1) in order to appreciate the controversy, the following pedigree table may be kept in view: banwari lal = roop devi | | | +---------------------------------------------+ | | | murari lal = memo devi amar nath dewan chand | +------------------+ | | | | sultan singh shiv raj singhbanwari lal was the karta of the joint hindu family and the joint hindu family had substantial joint hindu property and business. on 27th march, 1942, banwari lal died, leaving behind, his widow, smt. roop devi and three sons, namely, murari lal, amar nath and dewan chand. murari lal was the eldest son and, thereforee, he became the karta. on 10th july, 1942, the coparcenaries was dissolved and on 26th june, 1943 added of settlement/partition was executed between the coparceners and their mother, smt. roop devi, as on partition of joint hindu family, besides some cash, she was given the ownership of a three strayed house on plot no.49, block g, lekhram road, darya ganj, delhi. in plot, the erstwhile, hindu undivided family had held perpetual lease hold rights. the translation of the relevant recital is reproduced herein below: 'the property which have fallen in the share of smt. roop devi - party no.4 that cannot be mortgaged, sold, gifted etc. and cannot be put-in the surety etc.. i.e. the same cannot be alienated in any way by the said smt. roop devi. all the four parties shall reside in the abovementioned house. the present and the future electric, house-tax, water bills .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-03-1992
Reported in : 49(1993)DLT244; 1992(24)DRJ647
gokal chand mital, j. (1) in order to appreciate the controversy, the following pedigree table may be kept in view : banwari lal = roop devi murari lal = memo devi amar nath dewan chand sultan singh shiv raj singh (2) banwari lal was the karta of the joint hindu family and the joint hindu family had substantial joint hindu property and business. on 27th march, 1942, banwari lal died, leaving behind, his wodow, smt. roop devi and three sons, namely, murari lal, amar nath and dewan chand. murari lai was the eldest son and, thereforee, he became the karta. on 10th july, 1942, the coparcenary was dissolved and on 26th june, 1943 a deed of settlement/partition was executed between the coparceners and their mother, smt. roop devi, as on partition of joint hindu family, besides some cash, she was given the ownership of a three storeyed house on plot no. 49, block g, lekhram road, darya ganj, delhi. in plot, the erstwhile, hindu und'vided a family had held perpetual lease hold rights. the translation of the relevant recital is reproduced herein below : 'the property which have fallen in the share of smt. roop devi-party no. 4 that cannot be mortgaged, sold, gifted etc. and cannot be put in the surety etc. i.e., the same cannot be alienated in any way by the said smt. roop devi. all the four parties shall reside in the abovementioned house. the present and the future electric, house-tax, water bills and other taxes regarding the said building shall be paid by the first, second and .....Tag this Judgment!