Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: punjab and haryana Year: 1972 Page 2 of about 183 results (0.048 seconds)

Jan 10 1972 (HC)

Brij Mohan and ors. Vs. Jag Mohan and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-10-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H317

1. on 9th november, 1956 vide rent note, exhibit p-2, banarsi dass took a shop, situate in faridabad, district gurgaon, on rent from jag mohan son of jai narayan for a period of 11 months @ rs.4/- per month. the tenancy was to commence from 1st november, 1956. even after the expiry of the period of tenancy the tenant remained in possession of the property and continued paying rent to the landlord. on 5th january, 1959, another rent note, exhibit p-1, was written by the tenant in favour of the landlord and this was also for 11 months and at the same rate of rent, namely, rs.4/- per mensem. banarsi dass, subsequently, died on 14th december, 1965. on 11th april, 1966, a notice was issued by the landlord to his legal representatives asking them to vacate the premises, because the tenancy in favour of banarsi dass had come to an end and they were occupying the shop as mere trespassers, and in case, they did not do so, they would have to pay rs.100/- per month as damages for use and occupation of the premises. after issuing this notice, since the shop was not vacated, a suit for possession was brought on 27th may, 1966, by the landlord and his father jai narayan against brij mohan and others, the legal representatives of banarsi dass, treating them as trespassers and an amount of rs.400/- as compensation for use and occupation of the said premises for four moths was also claimed in the suit. it was alleged that by the death of banarsi dass, who was a statutory tenant, the tenancy .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 1972 (HC)

Chhotu Mauju Vs. Gurbhajan Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-12-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H265

order1. in a suit for permanent injunction, filed by the petitioner, to restrain the respondent from making constructions forcibly on his land comprised in khasra no. 2881, a dispute arose as to whether the constructions sought to be raised by the defendant-respondent, were in plaintiff's khasra no. 2881 or in defendant's own land comprised in khasra no. 2880. in order to demarcate the boundary line between the two khasra numbers, the trial court appointed shri sadhu ram. saddar kanungo, as a local commissioner on july 8, 1969, sadhu ram's report in favour of the defendant, was submitted on august 9, 1969. plaintiff filed objections against the same on august 27, 1969. on january 16, 1970 when plaintiff's objections against sadhu ram's report were pending, the defendant made a statement before the trial court to the effect that he would confine his constructions to khasra number 2880 and the court may get demarcation made with the assistance of the revenue authorities. plaintiff agreed to this. thereupon, the court fixed january 18, 1970, for inspection of the spot. from the order of the trial court dated january 19, 1970 it appears that demarcation could not be made on the preceding day as the concerned revenue official could not be available. admittedly, the presiding officer of the trial court was not able to visit the spot at any time thereafter. it was in this situation that on february 3, 1970, the trial court appointed shri mohinder singh, naib tehsildar as the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1972 (HC)

Bishan Dass and ors. Vs. Kehar Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-13-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H263

order1. on 18th april, 1953, bishan dass, bhagat ram and narinder kumar gave on rent a vacant plot belonging to them and situate in the city of jullundur to satish chander pal as partner of firm lord krishna soda silicate of jullundur at a monthly rent of rs.60/-. the tenant was asked not to construct any pacca structures on the said plot. it is said that in spite of this condition in the lease-deed, the tenant put up certain machinery and built some sheds on the demised premises. in may 1954, the tenant firm through its another partner rajeshwar singh pal, transferred the machinery and the sheds in favour of kehar singh. the goodwill of this firm was also given to kehar singh in june 1954. in july 1968, the landlords filed an application under section 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949 for the eviction of the tenant on four grounds, namely,(a) non-payment of rent; (b) personal necessity; (c) that the tenant has transferred the leasehold rights in favour of kehar singh without their consent; and (d) that the tenant has made unauthorised constructions on the said land. the application was made against the tenant and kehar singh was also impleaded as a party.2. satish chander pal admitted the claim of the landlords, but kehar singh opposed the application and pleaded that he was a direct tenant under the landlords with effect from 7th june, 1954, and had also made payments of rent to the landlords in that connection. he denied that the leasehold rights were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1972 (HC)

Dharam Chand Vs. the Union of India and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-18-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H291

order1. the acquired evacuee plot in dispute was put to public auction by the rehabilitation authorities on april 17, 1964 and purchased by respondent no. 5 who gave the highest bid of rupees 1,250/- for the same. one day before the auction dharam chand petitioner paid a sum of rs.46/- to the rehabilitation authorities on account of compensation for use and occupation of the said plot for the period commencing from december 15, 1947, and ending on march 31, 1963 at the rate of 0.25 p. per month. the petitioner, who claims to be a dhobi, and therefore, to be a member of a backward class as notified by a punjab state government on july 11, 1958 (annexure 'a'), preferred an appeal against the auction of the plot and claimed that he was entitled to the transfer of the plot to himself at its reserved price as he had put up some construction on it before january 1, 1963 and that he had also paid rent for use and occupation of the same up to that date, and even for a few months thereafter. the appellate authority by its order dated july 16, 1964 remanded the case to the tahsildar (sales) for fresh inquiry and report regarding the construction alleged to have been made on the plot by the petitioner. the tahsildar (sales) inspected the plot on october 5, 1964, and reported that the construction on the plot was of a temporary nature comprised of a 'chhappar' standing on wooden stays. it was further noted by the tahsildar that the petitioner had provided a door to that 'chhappar' only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1972 (HC)

Hari Chand Moti Ram Vs. Santokh Singh and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-18-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H312

order1. this is a tenant's revision petition against the decision of the appellate authority confirming on appeal the order of the rent controller evicting him from the premises in dispute.2. in 1942, santokh singh and his brother niranjan singh had purchased the house, which is situate in ludhiana. in the same year, a portion of this house, consisting of two rooms, a kitchen, a terrace and a gallery, on the first floor, was given on rent by niranjan singh to one moti ram at a monthly rent of rs.6/-. it appears that in 1945, an application under the rent act for the eviction of moti ram on the ground of personal necessity was moved by niranjan singh. subsequently, a compromise was effected and this application was withdrawn. in 1960, moti ram died and was survived by his three sons hari chand, lal chand and dhian chand. in 1963, another application under section 13 of the east punjab urban rent restriction act, 1949, hereinafter called the act, was made by niranjan singh and his brother santokh singh against shri hari chand and his brother lal chand for their eviction from the premises. this application was also, subsequently, withdrawn in april 1964, because the landlords had not given the required notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act, 1882.it appears that in january 1967, another application of a similar kind was moved by both the brothers against hari chand and lal chand. it is said that this application was also withdrawn at the appellate stage. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1972 (HC)

Gulwant Kaur Vs. Mohinder Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-18-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H260

order1. in a suit for possession of the disputed land filed by mohinder singh and gurmel singh respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter called the plaintiffs) on the basis of a registered sale-deed executed in their favour on june 18, 1968, by the husband of the defendant-petitioner, the defence of the petitioner was that the disputed property had been gifted to her on april 13, 1956, that the gift was oral, was accompanied by possession and that the petitioner had been in continuous possession of the land through her son madan jit singh (respondent no. 3 before me) since april, 1956. after the conclusion of the evidence led by the plaintiffs in the affirmative and of the evidence led by the defendant-petitioner and before the recording of the plaintiffs' evidence in rebuttal, an application was made by the petitioner in the trial court under order 6, rule 17 of the code of civil procedure for permission to amend her written statement so as to add an alternative defence to the claim of the plaintiffs about her being not liable to deliver possession to the plaintiffs on the ground that even if she was not able to prove the oral gift, she had become an absolute owner of the property by adverse possession as she had been in continuous possession of the property since april, 1956. by his order, dated november 10, 1971, the learned subordinate judge, sangrur, dismissed the application of the petitioner by holding that if the amendment was allowed, it would change the nature of the defence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 18 1972 (HC)

Vishan Dass and anr. Vs. Jaisi Bai Ude Bhan

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-18-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H310

1. on 13th july, 1946, shrimati jaisi bai effected two mortgages with possession of the land that she owned in village wanbachra, district mianwali, now in west pakistan. the first one was with regard to agricultural land, measuring 62 kanals 17 marlas, and it was in favour of vishan dass and his brother ram lal for rs.5,500/-. the other was with respect to 55 kanals 5 marlas in favour of khem chand and his brother amir chand for rs.5,000/-. it may be stated that all the mortgagees in both the cases were brothers. the mutations regarding these mortgages were sanctioned, but the relevant entries with regard to them and not, however, been recorded in the jamabandis, because of the partition of the country that took place in 1947. on migration to india, jaisi bai was allotted some land in village dulera kalan in district gurgaon. she got possession of that land and a sanad was also granted to her regarding it on 4th october, 1955. in july, 1959, two suits were brought by the mortgagees--the first one (suit no. 437 of 1959) was by vishan dass and ram lal; and the other (suit no. 438 of 1959) by khem chand and amir chand--for joint possession of 62/1609th and 55/1609th shares respectively, against jaisi bai. these suits were brought on the basis of the mortgages effected by her in pakistan, as mentioned above. it was alleged that the mutations in respect of these mortgages had been effected, but the necessary relevant entries were not made in the jamabandi papers.2. the suits were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1972 (HC)

D.A.V. College, Hoshiarpur Society, Hoshiarpur Vs. Sarvada Nand Anglo ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-20-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H245

orderharbans singh, c.j. 1. the brief facts necessary for the decision of the two cross appeals, l. p. as. nos. 122 and 235 of 1966 may be stated as follows:--there is a school known as sarvadanand anglo sanskrit higher secondary school (hereinafter referred to as 'the school') at bassi kalan, tehsil and district hoshiarpur. the management of this school was affiliated with the d. a. v. college. hoshiarpur society (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff-society') and as alleged by the plaintiff-society it was in effective management of the school for a number of years. they had a local managing committee which was, however, dissolved. in the year 1963 the management of the school was conducted by the plaintiff-society direct. it is alleged that on 4th july 1963 an unruly mob assaulted the principal of the school and belabored balbir singh, the president of the plaintiff-society. later some local residents purported to form the managing committee of the school and got the same registered. the suit, out of which the present appeals have arisen was filed on 14th august, 1963. the allegations made were, inter alia, as follows:-- (1) that the schools was founded by the plaintiff-society in the year 1915 as d. a. v. middle school and later on was named as sarvadanand anglo sanskrit middle school which was subsequently raised to the standard of higher secondary school. (2) that land was acquired by the plaintiff-society over which the building was constructed out of its own funds .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 1972 (HC)

Dhan Raj Mukh Ram Vs. the State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-20-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H300

order1. this order of mine will dispose of civil writs nos. 3947, 3948 and 3949 of 1971 as common questions of law and fact arise in all these petitions. in order to decide the controversy that was raised before me, certain facts may be noticed, which i am narrating from civil writ no. 3947 of 1971.2. the petitioner is a resident of village nathusari kalan, tehsil sirsa, district hissar. his land was assessed under sub-rule (6) of rule 6 of the punjab security of land tenures rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') and 106.50 ordinary acres equivalent to 21.24 standard acres were declared surplus by the collector, surplus area, sirsa, district hissar, respondent no. 2, vide his order dated august 9, 1963 (copy annexure 'a' to the petition). the land of the petitioner was declared surplus in village naranwali in old khasra numbers as at the time of the declaration of the surplus area, the consolidation proceedings had not finalized. the only other fact that needs mention is that the are which was declared surplus in the hands of the petitioner was utilized for the resettlement of the ejected tenants vide orders dated may 24, 1971, june 4, 1971 and june 5, 1971, contained in annexures 'b', 'c' and 'd', true translations of which have been attached with the petitions as annexures b-1, c-1 and d-1 respectively. it is the legality and propriety of these orders which have been challenged by way of this petition on various grounds.3. written statement in the shape of an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 1972 (HC)

Raghubans Singh Sehgal Vs. Wishav Wati Bajaj

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : Jan-24-1972

Reported in : AIR1972P& H259

order1. this is a defendant's petition for revision of the order of the court of the district judge, chandigarh, dated june 4, 1971 whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the decision of the trial court dismissing the petitioner's application under section 34 of the indian arbitration act (10 of 1940) (hereinafter called the act) was dismissed. the application for stay of the suit for the ejectment of the petitioner was filed on the allegation that there was an arbitration agreement in writing between the parties. no such agreement was produced. after appraising the evidence led by the parties on affidavits the trial court held that no such agreement ever existed. the learned district judge carefully reappraised the entire evidence and came to the same conclusion. the only ground on which this revision petition appears to have been admitted is whether the provision of section 33 of the act requiring evidence to be led on affidavits has to be followed in proceedings under section 34. this point had already arisen (before the admission of the present petition) in civil revision 986 of 1971, gian chand v. tirath ram gupta, counsel for the petitioner mentioned civil revision 981 of 1971 before the motion bench due to some error. in fact mr. s. c. goyal himself was the counsel in the previous case. that case has since been decided and is now reported in gian chand v. tirath ram gupta, 1972 cur lj 58 (punj). it has been held by a. d. koshal, j. in that case (gian chand's case .....

Tag this Judgment!


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