Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.2152 of 1985
Joginder Singh now Repntd. by his L.Rs
v.
The Gram Panchayat, Village Balian, District Sangrur & Ors.
{Decided on 23/03/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. K. S. Sandhu, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. P. C. Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, S.7--East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, S.22--Ownership--Land recorded as Mustarka Malkan Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat--Right holders land--In the jamabandi in the column of owner name of panchayat had been entered on the basis of letter issued by Deputy Secretary--Earlier jamabandi showed the land belongs to right holders or participators of the village--Appellate Authority has not only relied upon entries in jamabandi--Held the land having been left for augmentation of income for Gram panchayat under Section 18 of the Act--No finding that the land in dispute is a bachat land--Determination required--Case remanded.
------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2212
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.2210 of 2005
Dharam Pal.
v.
Prithi Singh
{Decided on 29/04/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Ksheterpal, Advocate.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881--Pronote--Suit for recovery on the basis of pronote--Pronote having been executed on a printed proforma and had merely required the gaps to be filled in--One of the attesting witness happens to be the nephew of the plaintiff--Plea of forgery and fabrication--Proof of--Both the parties examined handwriting experts--If the reports of both the experts are discarded, even then having a glance at the pronote and receipt and keeping in view the fact that the same have been proved by the attesting witness whose testimony could not be shattered--Pronote and receipt were not the result of forgery or fabrication.
----------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A.No.2379 of 2007
The Kotli Sanghar Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd.
v.
Gura Singh
{Decided on 21/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Rahul Rampal, Advocate.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.2 R.2--Injunction--Permanent and mandatory injunction suit--Relief to restraint respondent from terminating his services--Order of termination already passed--Once he was aware of the order of termination, it was for him to assail the same--Order was not specifically assailed--Earlier suit withdrawn--Permission to file fresh suit on the same cause of action not sought from Court--Present suit is barred.
------------
Ganesh Misra v. Mrs. Savita Devi Sahajpal
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Civil Revision No. 2323 of 2009
Ganesh Misra
v.
Mrs. Savita Devi Sahajpal
{Decided on 28/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction--Suit by co-owner--Mere assertion of co-owner to be an exclusive owner in the eviction proceedings does not make the eviction petition not maintainable
(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13--Eviction--Suit by co-owner--Petition filed by one of the landlord--Claimed herself to be an exclusive owner--Plea that she is not the exclusive owner--Effect--Even if she is the co-owner of the property--Co-owner is competent to seek eviction of a tenant--Mere assertion of to be an exclusive owner in the eviction proceedings does not make the eviction petition not maintainable--Eviction order will ensure for the benefit of all the co-owners.
(B) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13--Eviction--Personal Necessity--Petition for eviction of tenant on the ground of bona fide personal requirement--Petition filed by one of the landlord--Landlord has conveyed her intention to sell her property to her sister-in-law--Not sufficient to return a finding that the respondent does not have any bona fide personal requirement to her valuable property located in Chandigarh--When a litigant is before the Court for number of years, different thoughts come to the mind of the litigant, but the same is not sufficient to return a finding that the respondent does not have any bona-fide personal requirement of her valuable property.

--------------