Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-12-1961
Reported in : AIR1961P& H528
Tek Chand, J. 1. On a reference made by P. C. Pandit J. this case has been placed before this Bench for disposal. The question of law which has been referred to us is in the following terms : 'If in spite of protest by one co-owner, another co-owner raises a building on a portion of joint land, not exceeding his own share therein can the aggrieved co-owner obtain a decree for demolition of that building without proving special damage or substantial injury to him?' As the whole case is before us for decision, the facts of this case may be stated in detail. 2. The following pedigree-table will show the relationship of the parties; NAGNINA RAM __________________________________|_________________________ | | | | Daya Ram Sant Ram Gonda Ram Narain Singh plaintiff deft. No. 1 | | _____________________________|____ Gori | | deft. No. 2 Siri Ram Singh Bansi Lal deft. No. 3 deft. No. 4In the Court of first instance Daya Ram plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants alleging that the si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Sep-26-1961
Reported in : AIR1962P& H235
ORDER(1) Anant Ram petitioner, claiming to be the owner of agricultural land measuring about 6 Kanals and 7 Marlas situated in village Ballabgarh, district Gurgaon, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution Praying for a writ to quash the notification No. 185-41-B(1) 59/426 dated 8th January 1960 issued by the Governor, Punjab, purporting to act under Sections 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the order of the Collector dated 13th January 1960 authorising taking into possession of the land mentioned above. The impugned notification and order have been described to be illegal, without jurisdiction, ultra vires and outside the scope of the Act and, therefore, ineffectual and unconstitutional.(2) The principle, and indeed the only, attack against the notification and the order mentioned above is that the land in question has been acquired for the Good Year Tyre and Rubber Company limited (respondent No. 3) which is a company and which wants to set up a factor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : May-17-1961
Reported in : AIR1961P& H500
Falshaw, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of Dulat, J., affirming the decisions of the Court of first appeal and the trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellant IsharSingh.2. Briefly the facts are that one Punjab Singh had brought two suits for possession of land in which he was financed by Pritam Singh respondent on condition that Punjab Singh would make over half of the land gained by him in the event of his success. Punjab Singh succeeded in obtaining possession of about 78 bighas of land as the result of his suits, but apparently he did not carry out his part of the bargain and Pritam Singh was then forced to institute a suit for possession of his half share i. e., about 39 Bighas. Pritam Singh succeeded in the trial Court but his suit was dismissed in first appeal, and when the second appeal came to this Court the parties compromised and Pritam Singh as a result of the compromise was given about half the land he was claiming, some...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Oct-05-1961
Reported in : AIR1962P& H280; (1962)ILLJ592P& H
Mahajan, J.(1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by seven petitioners. (2) The Challenge in this petition is against the vires of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (Act No. 15 of 1958)--hereinafter referred to as the Act. It is contended that the Act is ultra vires Article 19 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it places unreasonable restrictions on the medical profession and in the matter of employment of technical staff by the petitioners without which they cannot carry on their profession in all its practical aspects.(3) Petitioner No. 1 is running a Nursing Home at Ambala City and is a surgeon also engaged in Gynaecology Obstetrics. He has in his employment one lady doctor, three nurses, two mid-wives, one laboratory and X ray technician, one ward bearer and two sweepers. The normal hours of this institution for running the out-door department are from 7.30 a.m. to 1.0 P.m. and from 4.0 p.m. to 8.0 p.m. This petitioner performs operatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-09-1961
Reported in : AIR1962P& H394
Bishan Narain, J. (1) One Kasturi Lal instituted two separate suits for possession of two separate pieces of lands situated in villages Mehlan and Mauran respectively against Bishan Singh and Bishan Singh's sons respectively. In both suits a claim for recovery of certain amounts as mesne profits was included. These suits were filed in the Court of Sub-Judge, 2nd Class, Sangrur. Both the suits were decreed on 10-5-1948. Both these villages at the time or the suits and of the decrees fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Judge, 2nd Class, Sangrur. On formation of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union in 1948 there was a readjustment of the boundaries of the various tehsils of the Sangrur district and these villages were attached to Sunam tehsil under Government notification with the consequence that these villages ceased to be within the territorial jurisdiction of Sangrur Courts and feel within the territorial jurisdiction of Sunam Courts. After these changes the decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-21-1961
Reported in : AIR1961P& H460
K.L. Gosain, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the Cantonment Board, Ferozepore, against the appellate decree of Shri Anand Dev Kaushal, Additional District Judge, Ferozepore, dated the 31st May 1960, confirming that of the learned trial Judge, dated the 31st December, 1959 passing a decree for a declaration to the effect that the order of the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Ferozepore, dated the 29th September, 1955, dismissing Bajrang Singh plaintiff from the post of Pump Driver under the Cantonment Board, Ferozepore, was void and ultra vires and that the plaintiff continues to be in service of the said Board. Bajrang Singh plaintiff was employed by the Cantonment Board Ferozepore as a Pump Driver. On the 28th June 1955 he was charge-sheeted for certain mal-practices and an enquiry was held into the said charges. On receipt of the enquiry report, requisite notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service was given to the plaintiff and he was later dismissed from s...
Tag this Judgment!