Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: partition act 1893 section 5 representation of parties under disability Court: punjab and haryana Page 1 of about 71 results (0.099 seconds)

Oct 22 1958 (HC)

Hukam Chand Siri Ram Vs. Harish Chander Siri Ram

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1959P& H129

..... decree which was passed on 30-1-1953 or from the final decree which was passed on a later date.'5. section 7 of the indian partition act is in the following terms ;'7. save as hereinbefore provided, when any property is directed to be sold under this act, the following procedure shall, as far as practicable, be adopted, namely --(a) if the property be sold ..... shop. a preliminary decree was granted on 30-1-1953, but no appeal was preferred from that decree. proceedings were taken for partition of the property by metes and bounds, and in the course of these proceedings the parties agreed that the shop should be sold and that the proceeds of the sale should be distributed between the co-sharers.the shop ..... order of the rent controller sought to be executed before the subordinate judge is to he treated as if it were a decree of his court; then section 47, civil procedure code, becomes applicable and the parties are entitled to an appeal from an order of an executing court though the order of the rent controller directing eviction is final and cannot be challenged ..... in the civil court. in hans raj salig ram v. niranjan lal, air 1952 punj 159 a division bench of this court held that where a matter is made .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 2003 (HC)

Jagir Singh Vs. Amarjit Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR2004P& H51

..... and he had rightly transferred the same in favour of the respondent nos. 2 and 3.'5. mr. n. s. boparal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that even after partition in 1956 the decree incorporating the aforementioned partition dated 7-5.-1958, the share of the land in the hands of defendant-respondent 1 sadhu singh ..... respondent 1 was not entitled to alienate the same, nothing has been proved on record that the sale made to defendant-respondents 2 and 3 was not an act of good management or for a legal necessity. it may be true that a share obtained by a coparcener from ancestral property continues to be ancestral property ..... plaintiff-appellant would be entitled to a share. learned counsel has further argued that the suit land could have been alienated only for a legal necessity or as an act of good management.6. mr. a. k. khunger, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents has submitted that firstly both the courts have found that the suit - ..... defendant-respondent 1 was not competent to alienate the suit land in the manner he liked unless such a sale is for a legal necessity or as an act of good management. referring to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment of the trial court, the learned counsel has pointed out that even defendant-respondent 1 ..... m.m. kumar, j.1. this is plaintiff s appeal filed under section 100 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (for brevit, 'the code') challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below, holding that .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 01 1963 (HC)

Sita Ram Bishambar Dass Vs. Joginder Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1963P& H531

..... its partition by metes and bounds under the preliminary decree was unable to do so. section 7 of the partition act is in the following terms:--'section 7. save as hereinbefore provided, when any property is directed to be sold ..... memorandum of appeal as a petition for revision.5. the first question for decision in this petition is as to whether the provisions of the code of civil procedure apply to the present case.6. as already mentioned above, the house in dispute was ordered to be auctioned under the provisions of section 7 of the partition act, 1893, because the local commissioner appointed to, effect ..... p.c. pandit, j.1. two houses nos. 1256 and 1257 situate in amritsar city belonged jointly to the parties to this litigation. a suit for partition of this property by metes and bounds was filed, which resulted in a preliminary decree on 27-2-1959. appeal against the same was also dismissed by this court on ..... 166 of the indian limitation act. under these circumstances he did not comply with the provisions of order 21, rule 89, civil procedure code, and the auction-sale in favour of aya singh could not therefore be cancelled.13. the result is that this petition fails and is dismissed. in the circumstances of this case, however, i will leave the parties to bear their own .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2012 (HC)

Pawan Kumar Vs. Gurmeet Kaur

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... has a preferential right to purchase the share of the plaintiff of the disputed house as per section 4 of the partition act, 1893 (for short the partition act). 2. the suit for possession was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that he was owner of 0.5 marla in the house shown in red colour marked as abcd in the site plan attached bounded ..... was decided against the plaintiff. issues no. 2 and 3 were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant regarding the rejection of the plaint and whether the suit was barred under ..... had not specifically pleaded under section 4 of the partition act, it did not take away her right to purchase the suit property being the member of the undivided family. accordingly, issue no. 1 ..... of the partition act which is to prevent the disintegration of the family dwelling house by preventing to introduce a stranger therein. it was noticed that the defendant had, in the statement on oath as well as in the written statement, pleaded that she is ready to purchase the alleged share in the property as provided under law and, therefore, even though she .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 1994 (HC)

Ram Kishan Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1995)109PLR414

..... their possession on the whole area, represented that there should be no partition of the joint khata. this led to the filing of representations and counter-representations by the co-owners and ultimately the director. consolidation exercising powers under section 42 of the 1948 act directed that joint khewat could not be partitioned without the consent of all share-holders. aggrieved, some of the co ..... in denotification dated january 6, 1981. it is also pleaded that when draft scheme was prepared and published on august 5, 1987, objections were invited and dealt with as per law. it is further pleaded that the rights of parties were to be determined in accordance with the latest jamabandi and the consolidation staff was only competent to go by ..... of those who had been cultivating larger part of the land as tenants than their ownership since long and that regular procedure regarding the partition of the joint khata is always available to the parties under the land revenue act after the completion of consolidation operations in the village. the state also took objection that the consolidation authorities were not bound to ..... partition the joint khewat. the stand of the state, as reflected above, was repelled and it was observed thus:-'as is provided in the scheme .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2013 (HC)

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... decide whether notice in form `n' was required to be given to the respondent no.4 under section 14-a(ii) of the 1953 act before ejectment of the respondent no.4. 8. accordingly, keeping in mind that after partition, no notice of demand was issued and rent had been paid to the co-sharer for which ..... the pendency of the case. accordingly, this court has no option but to proceed in the absence of their counsel.5. counsel for the petitioner has argued that under section 9(1)(ii) of the act, the tenant was liable to be evicted if he failed to pay rent regularly without sufficient cause and accordingly, it ..... consideration. relief in view of the decision arrived at in foregoing issues, the cwp no.3458 of 1994 -6- **** suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. parties to bear their own costs. 8. once the petitioners were paying rent to santa singh through his wife and attorney smt. harbans kaur of the larger chunk ..... the collector, ferozepur, order dated 10.6.1986 (annexure p-3) passed by the commissioner, ferozepur division, ferozepur and order dated 6.1.1994 (annexure p-5) passed by the financial commissioner, punjab are quashed and the ejectment petition filed by the respondents no.2 to 6 is dismissed. (g.s.sandhawalia) judge 29 ..... that the last lease money was received five year back. at the same time she has admitted her signatures on pw-1/a which is dated 24.5.1981. from the above discussion & in view of admission of harbans kaur about the execution of document ex. pw-1/a, it can safely be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 2007 (HC)

Satbir Singh Vs. Heera Lal and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2008)2PLR339

..... party in the proceedings for preparation of the final decree was earlier declined by the learned trial court on 5.2.2000. but later on during the proceedings, the learned trial court found that the presence of smt. savitri would be necessary as the petitioner has filed an objection under section 4 of the partition act, 1893 and that the relief in terms of section 4 of the partition act ..... is an application of a well-known rule which obtains among mohammedans every where and by custom also among hindus in some parts of the country.section 4 of the partition act, 1893 reads as under:4. partition suit by transferee of share in dwelling house: (1) where a share of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family has been transferred to a person who ..... transferee has not even moved an application for becoming party in execution proceedings. thus, it cannot be said that such transferee has sued for partition. if the transferee has not sued for partition, the petitioner cannot seek his preemptory right to purchase under section 4 of the act. the remedy of the petitioner is to seek partition by metes and bounds in terms of other provisions of ..... allotment can be claimed by any party irrespective of the fact whether he was the plaintiff or defendant. it was argued that if a stranger is defendant in a suit for partition, then irrespective of whether he asks for a separate allotment or not, any co-sharer can claim a right for pre-emption under section 4 of the act. such argument did not find .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1989 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tej Cloth Weaving Factory

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1989)80CTR(P& H)28; [1989]178ITR474(P& H)

..... recorded, the same shall be null and void. clause (b) to sub-section (9) of section 171 of the act provides that such family shall continue to be liable to be assessed under the act as if no such partial partition had taken place. clause (c) to sub section (9) of section 171 of the act provides that each member or group of members of such family, immediately before ..... 1979-80, and in the assessment year 1980-81 claimed deduction of the aforesaid amount, under section 36(1)(iii) of the income-tax act, 1961 (for short 'the act').2. the income-tax officer did not allow the deductions, as, in view of section 171(9) of the act, partial partition made after december 31, 1978, had to be ignored and the interest paid was considered ..... -firm ?'4. the assessee-firm has claimed deduction of the interest paid by virtue of section 36(1)(iii) of the act which reads asunder :'36(1) ..... (iii) the amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession.'5. for the applicability of the aforesaid provision, the assessee has to show that the interest ..... paid is in respect of the capital borrowed for the purposes of business. in this case, no amount was borrowed. the three hindu undivided families which had become partners of the assessee-firm had made business investments. on the alleged partial partition, the amount .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 09 1993 (HC)

Management of Electronic Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1994)IILLJ929P& H; (1993)105PLR345

..... is applicable to a case in which the government having declined to make a reference of dispute for industrial adjudication under section 10(1) of the act according and communicating such decision in accordance with the latter part of section 12(5) of the i.d. act proposes to refer the same dispute for adjudication subsequently except when:- (a) the reference becomes necessary ..... making the reference is fraught with serious consequences to industrial peace and, therefore, affording of an opportunity to the party concerned is inexpedient.' the preponderance of judicial ..... under circumstances set out in section 10(5) of the i.d. act, or (b) the government finds that there are exceptional circumstances in which any delay in ..... high court in american express international banking corporation v. union of india (1979 labour law journal 22). after noticing the decisions of various courts, the division bench held that 'the rule of audi alteram partem is attracted to the exercise of powers a second time under section 10(1) of the act whilst referring the matter for adjudication after the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 19 1969 (HC)

Ajit Singh Vs. Smt. Subaghan and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1970P& H93

..... of these appeals. it is settled under the provisions of section 117 of punjab act 17 of 1887 that even when a question of title is raised before a revenue officer in partition, but, on his direction to a party to have it settled by a civil court, the party does not go to a civil court, and the partition proceeds, the party can still, after completion of ..... of title. it has been so decided in bachan singh v. madhan singh, 61 pun re 1897, (fb), in which the learned judges held that when in partition proceedings before a revenue officer a question of title is raised, the revenue officer is bound, under section 117 of the land revenue act, 1887, to refuse partition until such question is decided by the civil court, or ..... 4, the settlement officer, annexure 'a' to respondent 1's petition, of february 20, 1964, was obviously an order made under section 36 of east punjab act 50 of 1948. it has been so stated in the return of respondents 2 to 5. it was an order made within jurisdiction. respondent 3 could only interfere with that order of respondent 4 in the terms ..... officer, copy of whose order is annexure 'a' to respondent 1's petition. it is pointed out in that order that when the settlement officer visited the village on february 5, 1964, in connection with the confirmation of the scheme of consolidation, ajit singh appellant raised two objections, (a) that respondent 1 was dead and her attorney was not competent to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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