Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1952P& H79
Kapur, J. 1. The sole point in this plaintiffs' second appeal is whether in the Ambala District collaterals of the seventh degree are preferential heirs than sisters' sons in regard to non-ancestral property. 2. According to the Riwaj-i-am of Ambala District the common custom is that a daughter is excluded by the collaterals descending from a common great great-grandfather (shakarbaba) and sisters will succeed in the absence of a daughter or daughter's son, the rule with regard to sons of sister being the same. Mr. Tek Chand has submitted that the Riwai-i-am of Ambala District must be taken to refer, as indeed the other Riwaj-i-ams, to ancestral property and therefore whatever be the right of the sisters or their sons in regard to ancestral property, non-ancestral property must be governed according to the general custom of the Punjab which is contained in paragraph 24 of Rattigan's Digest, and he relies on a judgment of the Lahore High Court in 'Kirpa v. Bakhshish Singh', 50 P L R 220...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1959P& H50
ORDERBishan Narain, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Janak Dulari under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act and arises out of her husband's application under Section 9 of the said Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties were admittedly married on 30-4-1945 at Nakodar (District Jullundur) and the present application was made on 10-11-1955 in Amritsar Courts. The wife objected to the jurisdiction of the Amritsar Court on the ground that the parties had last resided together at Gurdaspur and that she was residing at the time of the application at Palampur. The trial Court framed a preliminary issue regarding its jurisdiction and the Additional District Judge after recording evidence came to the conclusion that the parties had last resided together at Amritsar and therefore he had jurisdiction to hear the application. It is against this interlocutory decision that the present appeal has been filed.2. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with the jurisdiction of Court a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1960P& H530
ORDER1. Rama Nand was the last male-holder of the property in dispute who died leaving behind two widows, Mst. Jamni and Mst. Manglan, who succeeded to the entire estate of Rama Nand, including the property in dispute. After the demise of Mst. Jamni, the whole estate was held by Mst. Manglan, the surviving widow. Mst. Rajo daughter of Rama Nand inherited the entire property on the demise of Mst. Manglan. On 10th of November, 1943, Mst. Rajo sold certain agricultural land, described in clauses (Alif) of paragraph 1 of the plaint, to Amar Singh defendant No. 1 purporting to be for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. On 26th of June, 1945, she transferred certain other property, described in clauses (Be) and (Dal) of paragraph 1 of the plaint to Sant Lal defendant No. 2. Still later, on 6th of September, 1946, she transferred by way of sale, property described in clause (Jim) to defendants 3 to 9 for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-. Sewa Ram, claiming to be the sister's son of Rama Nand, challenged all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1961P& H352
Shamsher Bahadur, J.1. The plaintiff-respondents, Amar Nath Gupta, Manohar Lal, Nand Kishore and Prem Chand as rate-payers of the Municipal Committee, Sonepat, challenged the transaction of sale made fey the second defendant, Municipal Committee of Sonepat, in respect of 48 bighas and 5 biswas of agricultural land in favour of Ajudhya Nath appellant, who was made the first defendant in the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial Judge and this decree was affirmed in appeal preferred by the first defendant, who has now come in second appeal to this Court.2. In the first instance, 22 bighas and 15 biswas of land were given on lease by the Municipal Committee, Sonepat, on 19th of April 1938, to the Sonepat Electric Supply Company, for 18 years at an annual rent of Rs. 100/-. Subsequently in 1940, another strip of land was given on lease to the same company at Rs. 50/- per annum, the aggregate land under both the leases being 48 bighas and 5 biswas.3. On 5th of February 1941, a resolution ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1966P& H399; 1966CriLJ1189
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the production of. the petitioner and for his release from detention.2. By an order dated 23rd September, 1964, which appears to be on the usual cyclo-styled form, the District Magistrate of Delhi directed the detention of the petitioner in the Central Jail, Tehar, New Delhi under Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. In the order it was stated that the District Magistrate was satisfied from information received that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintainance of public order. In the petition as originally filed in January 1965, all that was stated by the petitioner was that he was being detained by the District Magistrate without any reasons having been given for his detention and that the usual procedure for the trial and punishment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1973P& H104
1. These five appeals will be disposed of by this judgment which have been numbered as F.A.O. Nos. 41, 42, 44, 96 of 1966 and 173 of 1967. All the appeals arise out of one judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') which was passed in five claim petitions, details of which are given here under. I have also given the number of appeals against each claim in which it has been filed:--Sr. No. ___________________ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Claim application No. ___________________ 15/CT of 1964 19/CT of 1964 20/CT of 1964 21/CT of 1964 22/CT of 1964 Name of the Parties ___________________ Rani Bai Bajaj and others. v. Darshan Singh and others. Dewan Manmohan Lal v. Darshan Singh and others Pritam Singh v. Darshan Singh and others. Mathura Dass v. Darshan Singh and others. Shrimathi Bhagwanti and others v. Darshan Singh and others Appeal, if field with number and the name of the appellant ___________________ (i) Appeal filed by Rani Bai Bajaj for enhanceme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1973P& H320
1. The sole question for decision in this second appeal from an order of remand passed by the lower appellate Court is whether the right to sue would survive tot he legal representation in a pre-emption suit for possession of agricultural land after the death of the plaintiff. The pre-emption suit had been brought on the ground that the plaintiff was the real brother of the vendor. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court before any decree was passed. The sister and the mother of the plaintiff wanted to continue the suit. The trial Court rejected the application of the legal representatives dismissed the suit. An appeal filed by the plaintiff-pre-emptor's legal representatives was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Hissar, and the case has been remanded to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. The order of the remand has been challenged in this second appeal. 2. Ch. Roop Chand, the learned counsel for the appellant, relies on a full B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1973)75PLR558
1. The appellant, Suresh Chandra Marwaha, filed a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act against the respondents which was dismissed by the learned single judge on March 17, 1972, and this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been directed against that order.2. The appellant is a shareholder of M/s. Lauls Private Ltd., Faridabad (hereinafter called ' the company '), holding 5 shares of Rs. 100 each. His mother, Shrimati Shiv Chandrika Marwaha, holds 754 shares and the petition has been filed with her support. Thus, the appellant and his mother hold more than 10 per cent. shares of the company and were entitled to file a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act.3. The company was incorporated as a private company limited by shares in 1933 and its principal promoter was Shri S. R. Laul, advocate. Articles 6 and 8 of the company provided as under :' 6. That no shares of this company shall be held by any person other than the descendants of Mr....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1975P& H160
Bal Raj Tuli, J. 1. These two writ petitions (Civil Writs Nos. 266 and 1924 of 1974) will be disposed of by this judgment as they raise a common question of law.2. The facts of C. W. 266 of 1974, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, Dr. Harkishan Singh, his wife and two sons, purchased shop-cum-flat No. 7, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh, from Lt. Col. Surjit Singh Padda by means of a registered sale deed dated October 13, 1971. At that time, Tara Chand Jain, respondent 3, was the tenant of those premises and he attorned as a tenant to the petitioner. The rent of the premises was Rs. 300/- per mensem which he paid from November, 1971 to February, 1972, to the petitioner. The petitioner, his two sons and his wife, terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to respondent 3 and, on his failure to vacate the premises, they filed a suit for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages on May 12, 1972. The plea raised by respondent 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H97
M.R. Sharma, J.1. The facts giving rise to this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent can be stated in a short compass. The appellant Smt. Ushman was married to Inderjit, respondent, on February 28, 1970, at Amritsar. On March 1, 1970, she went to the house of her husband to live with him. For the period of 5 or 6 days for which they lived together and lodged together in one room at night time, it was found that the respondent was incapable of having a sexual intercourse with her. She alleged that she was left at her parents' house by the respondent on March 7, 1970. She informed them of this matter and they put the respondent under the treatment of Dr. Kuldip Chand (P. W. 2) and then under the treatment of Dr. Bodh Raj (P. W. 6). However, the respondent could not be cured. She further alleged that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and this fact was known to him and to his parents. In a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter refer...
Tag this Judgment!