Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1948 Page 7 of about 100 results (0.099 seconds)

Jun 24 1948 (PC)

Mul Chand Vs. Small Town Committee and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jun-24-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H177

bhandari, j.1. the principal point for decision in the present case is whether a certain debt contracted by the father of the contesting defendant is of the nature of an avyavaharika debt that is a debt which a bon is under no legal obligation to pay. it appears that one churanji lal was unable to account for certain sums of money which came into his hands in his capacity as the treasurer of the small town committee of dharamkot. the committee brought a suit against him for the recovery of the moneys which were said to have been misappropriated and obtained a decree in a sum of rs. 8663-5-0 on account of principal and rs. 1088-14-0 on account of costs. this was on 28th august 1939. the house of churanji lai was attached on 31st may 1941 and his land was attached on 13th june 1941. mul chand a son of churanji lai thereupon preferred an objection to the attachment on the ground that the property in dispute had been bequeathed to him by his grandfather daya ram and consequently that he and not his father churanji lai was the owner thereof. this objection was allowed and the property released from attachment on 20th december 1942. the committee were dissatisfied with the order and brought the present suit for a declaration that the house and the land in dispute are liable to attachment and sale in the execution of their decree against churanji lal.2. the committee alleged that daya ram, his two sons churanji lai and kishori lal and his grandson mul chand were the members of a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 1948 (PC)

Mt. Sindhi Vs. Mt. Partapo

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-29-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H207

mahaja, j.1. regular second appeal no. 834 of 1946 was referred to a bench on the ground that it involved an important question of law which was nude of authority.2. the land in dispute belonged to one phindu. he died leaving him surviving a widow mt. lachhmi and a daughter mt. partapo. mt. lachhmi in february 1944 made an oral gift of the land that she inherited from her husband in favour of her daughter mt partapo. before the mutation was sanctioned mt. lachhmi died. mt. sindhi, plaintiff, who is the widow of a fourth degree collateral of phindu, appeared before the mutation officer and objected to the mutation being sanctioned on the basis of the gift. the mutation was, however, sanctioned in favour of the donee in spite of her objections. on 9th february 1944 a document was executed by mt. sindhi in favour of the donee's husband in the following terms:mt. lachhmi has gifted the land in favour of mt. partapo and mutation has been sanctioned in her name. i give my assent to this gift and i will not bring any suit to contest it. i have given up my right in the gifted property.this document was executed for a certain consideration mentioned in it. on 6th march 1914, mt. sindhi brought the present suit to challenge the gift regarding which she had agreed not to bring a suit.3. it was alleged in the plaint that the land in suit was ancestral and that the gift by mt. lachhmi in favour of mt. partapo was not binding on her and therefore it should be declared that she is the owner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 1948 (PC)

Mangal Singh Badan Singh Vs. Bhag Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-10-1948

Reported in : AIR1948P& H19

bhandari, j.1. the short point for decision in this case is whether it is open to a pre-emptor to exclude another pre-emptor by entering into an agreement with a stranger vendee to purchase only a part of the property in respect of which the right of pre-emption exists. it appears that on 6-2-1944 one bishan singh sold a plot of land measuring 17 bighas 9 biswas and 14 biswansis to bhag singh for a sum of rs. 9,500. on 18-8-1944 kapur singh and bahadur singh, two collaterals of the vendor, purchased a portion of this land (measuring 9 bighas 3 biswas and 19 biswansis) for a sum of rs. 5,000 in assertion of their right of pre-emption. the sale in favour of bhag singh gave rise to three suils for possession by pre-emption each of which was brought by one or more of the collaterals of the vendor. the first suit was brought by mangal singh on 15-8-1944; the second by mai singh on 20-10-1944 and the third by kapur singh and bahadur singh on 9-1-1945. the plaintiffs in the last case alleged that as soon as they were informed of the sale in favour of bhag singh, they threatened to exercise, their right of pre-emption. the vendee promptly transferred 9 bighas 3 biswas and 19 biswansis to them promising to transfer the remaining land in due course. he failed to carry out his promise and the plaintiffs were accordingly reluctantly compelled to sue for possession of 8 bighas 5 biswas and 15 biswansis. the trial court held that the right of pre-emption of each of the three sets of pre- .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 1948 (PC)

Gurdev Singh and ors. Vs. Dasaundhi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Mar-22-1948

Reported in : AIR1948P& H22

achhru ram, j.1. this second appeal has arisen tinder the following circumstances. by means of sale deed dated 6-6-1939. chetu deceased son of hira singh and chuhra defendant 3 sold 36 bighas and 1 biswa of land in suit to defendants 1 and 2 for a consideration of rs. 3000. defendants 1 and 2 transferred the land to defendants 4 to 6 by means of exchange. the plaintiffs, the sons of chuhra, defendant 3, brought the suit, that has given rise to the present second appeal for a declaration to the effect that the sale of the land in suit by their father and the deceased chetu, a near collateral of theirs, should not affect their reversionary rights after the death of their father chuhra. it was alleged that the land was ancestral qua them and that the sale had been effected without consideration and legal necessity. on the pleadings of the parties the learned trial judge framed the following issues:(1) is the land in suit ancestral qua the plaintiffs?(2) whether the sale was effected for consideration and legal necessity?(3) whether the suit is collusive?(4) relief.2. the learned judge found that the land in suit was divisible into two categories. 34 bighas and 2 biswas of land shown as category 'a' had been allotted to the vendors in the' proceedings for consolidation of holdings in lieu of 35 bighas and 3 biswas of land indicated by the letter 'b' in the judgment. the remaining land fell under category 'a/1' the learned judge found the land which the vendors had thrown into the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 23 1948 (PC)

Jit Singh S/O Indar Singh Vs. the Crown

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-23-1948

Reported in : 1949CriLJ840

harnam singh, j.1. jit singh, amrik singh and harnam singh of village akalgarh were tried for the murder of hazura singh of village rasulpur in the court of the sessions judge, ludhisna. jit singh and amrik singh are brothers and harnam singh is their uncle. amrik singh and harnam singh have been acquitted and jit singh has been convicted under section 302, penal code, and sentenced to transportation for life. jit singh appeals.2-3. briefly, the prosecution case is that there was enmity between bakhshi singh an uncle of hazura singh deceased, and the accused. hazurft singh had come to visit his uncle bakhshi singh in village akalgarh and at about sunset on i8tb june 1947 he was taking mb meals with bakhshi singh when jit singh, amrik singh and harnam singh attacked him. jit singh appellant gave a. barohha blow in the abdomen of hazura singh while amrik singh attacked him with dhangi on his head and harnam singh gave him a dang blow on the bipa. nichhatar singh and bakhshi singh witnessed the occurrence.4. the dying declaration of hazura singh was recorded by pandit kewal krishan, naib tehsildar, on 14th june 1947 about 8.30 a. m. in the civil hospital.5. the prosecution examined bakhshi singh and nichhatar singh in support of the prosecution story and also examined evidence to prove the dying declaration of hazura singh deceased.6. in the chalan that was put in court it was stated that bakhshi singh had collected hazura singh and some other men including himmat khan who were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 04 1948 (PC)

Phool Chand Vs. Raja Ram

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-04-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H271

bhandari, j.1. the question which falls to be determined in this second appeal is whether the custom of pre-emption prevails in mohalla meghan of village sadhaura of the ambala district. it appears that on 29th march 1944, one mt. iqbal begam sold a certain house situate in village sadhaura to raja ram and ram kishan for a sum of rs. 500. tulsi ram, who owns a house contiguous to the house which was the subject-matter of the sale, has brought the present suit for possession by pre-emption of the property in question. the plaintiff died during the pendency of the proceedings and his two sons, phool chanel and mehar chand, were impleaded as plaintiffs. the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and the decision of the trial court was affirmed by the senior subordinate judge in appeal. the senior subordinate judge has held: (a) that the house is situate in mohalla meghan and not in mohalla sawanian as is alleged in the plaint, (b) that mohalla meghan does not form part of mohalla sawanian and (c) that the custom of pre-emption does not prevail in mohalla meghan. the plaintiffs have come to this court in appeal and the question for this court is whether the courts below have come to a correct determination in point of law.2. the first point for decision in the present case is whether the town of sadhaura was founded by mohammadan conquerers for if it was founded by them the custom of pre-emption must be presumed to exist karim ahmad v. bahmat elahi a.i.r. 1946 lah. 432. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 1948 (PC)

Mohan Lal Kojriwal Vs. Sundar Lal Nand Lal Saraf and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-05-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H295

bhandari, j.1. this appeal raises two questions, namely, (1) whether the defendant was duly served; and if so (2) whether his application for setting aside the ex parte decree is barred by time. it appears that on 22nd january 1947 messrs. sundar lal-nand lal of delhi brought a suit against one mohan lai of ajudhia for the recovery of a certain sum of money on the basis of certain forward contracts in gold and silver. the commercial sub-judge delhi, issued a notice to the defendant for 5th march 1947 but the latter failed to appear on that date and an ex parte decree was passed against him on 13th march 1947. this decree was later transferred for execution to the court at gorakhpur and property of the defendant was attached on 10th july. about a fortnight later i.e., on 23rd july 1947 the defendant applied to the commercial sub-judge at delhi for the setting aside of the decree. he attributed his failure to appear in court on 5th march to the fact that he was not duly served and the delay in presenting his petition for the setting aside of the decree to the fact that he did not come to know of the decree till the property was attached on 10th july. the trial court framed the appropriate issues with the object of ascertaining whether the defendant had been duly served and whether the application was barred by time and adjourned the case for the production of evidence. one mr. r.d. sharma was appointed a commissioner to examine the defendant and certain witnesses who were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 1948 (PC)

Gopal Fateh Singh Vs. Sis Ram and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-24-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H283

harnam singh, j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a single storyed house situate in the abadi of narela instituted by the plaintiffs on 10th april 1944 on the allegations that defendants 1 and 2 had mortgaged the house with the plaintiffs and father of defendants 3 to 5 on 30th august 1926 for a consideration of rs. 1000 carrying interest at the rate of rs. 1-9-0 per cent, per mensem on the condition that if the principal and interest were not paid within five years the house shall be deemed to have been sold to the mortgagees. the plaintiffs further alleged that the father of defendants 3 to 5 had died and as a result of partition between the parties the rights under the mortgage had been allotted to the plaintiffs.2. the case of the plaintiffs was that a notice was sent to the defendants on 17th october 1931 and that notwithstanding that notice the mortgage debt had not been paid, thereupon, on 26th february 1932 the mortgagees made an application in the court of the district judge, delhi, under section 8 of regn. xvii [17] of 1806 and in spite of the fact that a copy of the application made under section 8 of the regulation had been furnished to the defendants and the district judge had notified to the defendants by a parwana under his seal and official signature that if they shall not redeem the property mortgaged in the manner provided for by section 7 of the regulation the mortgage will be finally foreclosed and the conditional sale will become .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1948 (PC)

Kurarya Vs. Data Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-03-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H49

ordermahajan, j.1. this is an application in revision against an order of mr. banwari lai, sub-judge second class, rohtak, dated 18th april 1945, dis. missing the plaintiff's suit for pre-emption under the provisions of order 9, rule 5, civil p.c. this rule reads thus:where, after a summons has been issued to the defendant or to one of several defendants, and returned unserved, the plaintiff fails, for a period of three months from the date of the return made to the court by the officer ordinarily certifying to the court returns made by the serving officers, to apply for the issue of a fresh summons the court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed as against such defendant....2. in order to make this rule applicable to the circumstances of a particular case, it has to be established under the provisions of order 5, rule 1 and 2, that a summons was issued to that defendant and that summons was accompanied by a copy of the plaint. as regards the contents of a summons these have been laid down in appendix b, form of the code, and it has been held that it is not enough that the defendant is generally made aware of the institution of a suit against him; each defendant is entitled to a copy of the summons with a copy of the plaint annexed to it.3. what happened in the present case was that the suit for pre-emption was instituted on 19th december 1944 by the plaintiff, who is an agnate of the vendor, in respect of a sale made by him on 8th april 1944 of 5 bighas 11 biswas of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 1948 (PC)

Duni Chand Tara Chand Vs. Ram Ditta Mall and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-25-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H20

teja singh, j.1. one sant ram of amritsar mortgaged a house and four shops in favour of gurdit singh on 29th june 1926.2. on 5th december 1931 gurdit singh brought a suit for the recovery of his debt by the sale of the mortgaged property. sant ram died during the pendency of the suit. his four minor sons including duni chand and tara chand were brought on record as their deceased father's legal representatives. after having obtained a final decree gurdit singh started execution proceedings on 21st april 1932. on this, dina nath, who is the maternal uncle of the minor sons of sant ram, instituted a suit against gurdit singh for having the mortgage decree set aside. the suit was dismissed and so was the appeal from the order of the trial court. on 15th november 1933 the mortgaged property was sold by the executing court in favour of ramditta mal. the sale was confirmed on 15th december 1933 and the auction purchaser obtained possession of the property sometime in 1934. duni chand and tara chand, two of the sons of sant ram brought the present suit on 11th june 1946 for possession of the property which was the subject-matter of the mortgage, on the allegations that the property was ancestral, that the mortgage was without consideration and amounted to a fictitious transaction. they did not seek any definite relief regarding the mortgage decree and the auction sale in favour of ramditta mal but it was mentioned in the plaint that since their mother who had been appointed their .....

Tag this Judgment!

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