Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1948 Page 8 of about 100 results (0.019 seconds)

Jun 09 1948 (PC)

Bhagwan Singh Vs. Raghnath Sahai and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jun-09-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H44

ordermahajan, j.1. this application in revision is> directed against an order of the senior subordinate judge, delhi, returning the memorandum of appeal for presentation to a court of proper jurisdiction.2. what happened was this. a suit for ejectment and for recovery of rs. 350 as rent was instituted by the plaintiffs against the defendant. that suit was decreed by the trial judge. the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was fixed at rs. 986.3. against this decision an appeal was preferred to the court of the senior subordinate judge, delhi. at the hearing of the appeal a preliminary objection was taken on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the court of the senior subordinate judge in this case. it was urged that the senior subordinate judge had jurisdiction to hear appeals in unclassed suits in which the value for jurisdiction did not exceed rs. 500 and that the value in the present case being beyond that sum the appeal had been preferred in a court which had no jurisdiction to entertain it.4. the learned judge gave effect to this objection and directed that the memorandum of appeal be returned to the appellant. he negatived the contention raised on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the ordinary law having been amended by rules framed by the high court under ordinance no. 25 of 1944, section 11 the appeal lay to the court of the senior subordinate judge. according to these rules, a party to an original are can appeal to the senior subordinate judge 5. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1948 (PC)

Mt. Ratni W/O Tara Singh Vs. Harwant Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-27-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H158

teja singh, j.1. the property in dispute in this case, which consists of agricultural land, a house and a bara, belonged to wary am singh. on waryam singh's death it descended to his son hazura singh and on haznra singh's death it devolved upon mt. dani, his mother. mt. dani gifted the property to her daughter mt. eatni. the plaintiffs who claimed to be hazura singh's collaterals brought a suit for cancellation of the gift on the ground that mt. dani's right of alienation was restricted and the gift did not affect their reversionary interests. they also contended that the land was ancestral qua them. the trial judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove either that they were hazura singh's collaterals or that the land was ancestral qua them. consequently, he dismissed their suit. on appeal, the learned additional district judge set aside the finding of the trial sub-judge on the first point, held that the plaintiffs were collaterals of hazura singh, and even though he agreed with trial sub-judge that the land was not ancestral, he decreed the plaintiffs' suit but left the parties, to bear their own-costs. mt. ratni has now come to this court on, second appeal.2. the plaintiffs are the descendants of dai singh while hazura singh was the descendant of mughlu singh. the trial sub-judge had taken the view that dal singh and mughlu singh were not proved to be related to each other. the plaintiffs' position was that they were real brothers and were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 1948 (PC)

Natha Ram and anr. Vs. Mt. Sohan Devi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-29-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H277

teja sihgh, j.1. the property which is the subject-matter of this litigation consists of 434 kanals and 7 marlas of land. originally, it belonged to honorary captain mul singh of sarai amanat khan and on his death devolved upon one mehr chand by virtue of the will made by mul singh in his favour. on 27th july 1940, mehr chand gifted the said land to his cousins natha ram and paqir chand by means of a registered deed of gift. on 30th october 1944, mt. sohan devi, mehr chand'a wife, in her own right and as the next friend of her two minor daughters kailash devi and koshalya devi, brought a suit for a declaration that the gift was bogus and it did not affect the rights of the plaintiffs. the plaintiffs' allegations inter alia were that mehr chand's rights over the property were limited for life, and that he had no right to dispose of it by gift. it was further alleged by the plaintiffs that the gift had been obtained by natha ram and paqir chand by undue influence and fraud and accordingly it conferred no title upon them.2. the defendants denied the plaintiffs' allegations and pleaded 'that they had no locus standi to challenge the gift. they also urged that the suit was collusive. the following four issues were framed by the trial sub-judge:(1) whether defendant 3, mehr chand, got the property in dispute by means of a will from s.b. mul singh and was he not empowered to alienate it by means of a gift?(2) whether the plaintiffs can challenge the gift?(3) whether the gift in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 15 1948 (PC)

Ganeshi Lal Vs. Joti Parshad and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Sep-15-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H254

mahajan, j.1. the facts giving rise to this second appeal may be shortly stated. the property in dispute was mortgaged by all the sons of one ram narain in the year 1896 by means of two mortgage deeds with one raghu mal of delhi in the sum of rs. 11,200. at the time of the mortgage ram narain's sons constituted a joint hindu family. ganeshi lal defendant 1, one of the sons of ram narain, redeemed this mortgage in the year 1920 on payment of a sum of rs. 5800 and entered into possession of the mortgaged property. subsequently he was paid a sum of rs. 1200 by certain persons whose property was under mortgage with the joint family. these facts are no longer in dispute between the parties.2. on 11th january 1942, the descendants of two of the sons of ram narain brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for possession by partition of the property in dispute in respect of their shares. the plaintiffs alleged that the family had disrupted since about eight years before the suit and that they had a two-fifth share in it of which they claimed possession by partition.4. the suit was mainly defended by ganeshi lal and he raised a number of pleas. it was contended by him that at the time when he redeemed the mortgage the family had ceased to be a joint hindu family, and that by redemption of the mortgage he had taken possession of the mortgaged property and was holding it adversely. he further contended that in any case the plaintiffs could not be given a decree of their shares in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1948 (PC)

Municipal Committee Vs. the Governor-general in Council

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-30-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H280

achhru ram, j.1. this is an appeal from 'the decree of the learned senior sub-judge of delhi, affirming on appeal the decision of a subordinate judge decreeing the plaintiff's claim for refund of a sum of rs. 188-10.0 alleged to have been wrongfully levied by the defendant by way of wheel tax on certain carts belonging to the b.b. and c.i. railway, bombay and plied in the city of delhi and for issuing a perpetual injunction to the defendant restraining them from levying such tax from the plaintiff in future.2. in 1914, the municipal committee of delhi decided to levy wheel tax on all wheeled vehicles plied within the municipal limits of delhi and the requisite formalities for the imposition of the tax were duly gone through. the b.b. and c.i. railway, bombay, has got a number of bullock carts that are plied within the said limits. a sum of rs. 188-10-0 having been recovered from the said railway administration by the committee on account of wheel tax in respect of the said carts, the suit giving rise to the present second appeal was instituted by the governor-general in council represented by the general manager of the b.b. and c.i. railway, bombay.3. section 135, railways act provides:notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment, or in any agreement or award based on any enactment, the following rules shall regulate the levy of taxes in respect of railways and from railway administrations in aid of the funds of the local authorities, namely;(1) a railway .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1948 (PC)

Thakar Das and ors. Vs. Sant Ram

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jul-27-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H219

orderachhru, j.1. this is a petition for revision of the order of the learned senior subordinate judge of dharamsala reversing on appeal the decision of the subordinate judge of kangra who had decreed the plaintiffs' suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of rs. 386 on the basis of a pronote dated 15th july 1939 and dismissing the suit as barred by time.2. prima facie the suit was barred by limitation on the date on which it was instituted. exemption from the law of limitation was, however, claimed by the plaintiffs on the ground that on 19th magh 1998 corresponding to slat january 1942 a sum of rs. 49 had been paid by the defendant in part payment of the principal and the fact of such payment was duly endorsed on the pronote by him under his own band. the learned senior subordinate judge is of the opinion that the endorsement relied on by the plaintiffs cannot extend limitation under section 20, limitation act, because it does not state whether the payment of rs. 49 had been made by the defendant on account of interest as such or in part payment of the principal but evidences only a payment in general account. in the petition for revision it is urged that even though the endorsement cannot extend limitation under section 20, it obviously amounts to an acknowledgment within the meaning of section 19, limitation act, and must, therefore, be held to save limitation under that section.3. after reading the endorsement i am clearly of the opinion that the contention of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 1948 (PC)

Chet Singh Vs. Rur Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Aug-23-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H209

mahajan, j.1. mt. harnam kaur, widow of mangal singh, mortgaged the suit land for rs. 1300 in favour of chet singh defendant on 10th april 1944. within a few months of the alienation, rur singh plaintiff sued to challenge the mortgage under custom. he alleged that he was a collateral of mangal singh, that the land in suit was his ancestral property and that in any case even if it was held that the land was the self-acquired property of mangal singh the widow had only a life estate and could not mortgage it without necessity.2. the mortgagee denied the ancestral nature of the property and pleaded that the widow had an unrestricted power of alienation in respect of the self-acquired property of her husband. it was also said that the mortgage was for consideration and legal necessity.3. the trial judge held that the plaintiff being a collateral of mangal singh was entitled to challenge the alienation in dispute, that the land had not been proved to be ancestral of the plaintiff and mangal singh, that the widow was in possession of it as a limited owner and that the alienation had not been made for necessity. in the result the plaintiff was granted a decree declaring that the mortgage shall not affect his reversionary rights after the death of the widow. against this decision an appeal was preferred to the court of the senior subordinate judge, amritsar.4. before the learned judge the finding of trial court on the question of consideration and necessity for the mortgage was not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1948 (PC)

indra Devi Vs. Sarnagat Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-19-1948

Reported in : AIR1955P& H81

orderfalshaw, j.1. sarnagat singh filed a complaint at, delhi under sections 498, 379 and 109, penal code against his wife mohindar kaur, kewal kishan and the letter's sister kumari indra devi alleging that kewal kishan and kumari indra devi had enticed away his wife, who had taken away with her some property belonging to him. after recording the preliminary evidence the learned magistrate, who dealt with the complaint found that the charge of theft was not substantiated and ordered the issue of warrants bailable in a sum of rs. 500/- against kewal kishan and kumari indra devi for their appearance as accused under section 498, penal code and at the same time ordered the issue of a warrant of arrest against mohindar kaur, presumably for her appearance as a witness, though this was not stated in the order, which also omitted to specify the nature of the warrant to be issued,on behalf of kumari indra devi an application was filed in the court of the learned magistrate for her exemption from personal appearance as an accused in the case on the grounds that she was a respectable young lady of about 20 employed as the head mistress of a girls school at gurdaspur and was unfit to undertake the journey to delhi, and moreover she had been falsely implicated in the case merely to put pressure on her brother. no section of the criminal procedure code under which her exemption from personal appearance was claimed was mentioned in the application, but the learned magistrate in his order .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 28 1948 (PC)

Thakar Das and anr. Vs. Chet Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Dec-28-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H367

achhru ram, j.1. by means of a mortgage-deed dated 22nd june 1945 rala ram and mt. prabhi, his brother's widow, brahmins of the village ajoli in una tahsil in the district of hoshiarpur, mortgaged 8 kanals and 10 marlas of land in favour of defendants 1 to 4 for a sum of rs. 4000. by means of another mortgage-deed dated 12th june 1945 rala ram alone mortgaged 3 kanals and 17 marlas of land to the same defendants for a sum of rs. 1,300. thakar das and jagan nath eons of rala ram brought two separate suits for the usual declaration in respect of the two mortgages. the suits were resisted by the mortgagees inter alia on the pleas that the brahmins of the village ajoli were not governed by agricultural custom in matters relating to alienation, that rala ram's powers of alienation were not subject to any customary restriction and that the mortgages-were for legal necessity. the learned subordinate judge held that in matters of alienation brahmins of the village of the parties were governed by custom and that according to that custom rala ram's powers of alienation over ancestral property were restricted. he further found that necessity had been proved for the first mortgage only to the extent of rs. 3000 and that no necessity had been proved at all for the second mortgage. in the result he granted the plaintiffs a declaratory decree to the effect that the mortgage-deed dated 22nd june 1945 would not affect their reversionary rights after the mortgagors' death except to the extent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 1948 (PC)

Mt. Kaulu Vs. Tolu Ram

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Nov-26-1948

Reported in : AIR1949P& H407

harnam singh, j.1. this appeal has arisen out of a suit instituted by mt. kaulu for possession of land measuring 30 kanals and 9 marlas situate in village tappa. jalari on the allegations that mt. makori, mother of the plaintiff, was not competent to make a gift of the land in suit in favour of tolu ram defendant. the plaintiff pleaded that the suit land was in possession of mt. makori as the estate of her husband. the land was described in the plaint as the self-acquired property of mt. makori's husband and the plaintiff claimed that she being the daughter of nidhu, husband of mt. makori, was entitled to the possession of the suit land.2. tolu ram defendant denied that mt. makori was the widow of nidhu or that the plaintiff was a daughter of nidhu. he pleaded that mt. kaulu had no locus standi to challenge the gift in question and in case the plaintiff was found to be the daughter of nidhu, she had no right to succeed to the land in suit as the defendant was a collateral of the deceased and the land in suit was ancestral qua his and the gift made by mt. makori in favour of the defendant was made for services rendered. the case was fought on the following issues:1. is defendant 1 not the widow of nidhu? 2. is plaintiff the daughter of nidhu deceased? 3. was the gift in favour of tolu ram defendant 2 validly made? 4. is the land in suit ancestral qua defendant 2 tolu ram? 5. is defendant 2 a collateral of nidhu deceased? if so, of what degree? 6. is there any other legal .....

Tag this Judgment!


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