Sunday, March 28, 2010

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 124 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh
CWP No.3768 of 2009
Harpal Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 21/12/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. A.J. Jatana, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. J.R. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.4: Mr. B.S. Jaswal Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Village Common Land--Title--In absence of findings of title over suit property by competent authorities under the Act in favour of vendors of petitioner, they cannot rely on findings of Civil Court to assert that they are owners of suit land.
Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961, Ss.7, 11 & 13--Title--Jurisdiction of Civil Court--Question whether land in dispute is shamlat deh and vests with Panchayat can exclusively be determined by authorities in terms of Section 13 of the Act--Decision of Civil Court deciding question of title indirectly would not operate as Resjudicata as Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide such question--Therefore, finding recorded by Civil Court in respect of ownership of petitioner are findings of Court without jurisdiction--In absence of findings of title over suit property by competent authorities under the Act in favour of vendors of petitioner, they cannot rely on findings of Civil Court to assert that they are owners of suit land. (P. 5 & 6)
------------
Raj Kali & Ors. v. Jitender & Ors.
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
R.S.A. No. 820 of 2004
Raj Kali & Ors.
v.
Jitender & Ors.
{Decided on 25/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate.
For the Respondents No. 1 and 2: Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate, for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate,
(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Family Settlement--Concept--Even if, one of the parties to the settlement had no apparent antecedent title, but under the arrangement, the other party relinquishes all its claims or title, in favour of such a person, and acknowledges him, to be the sole owner, then antecedent title was to be presumed, and the family settlement was liable to be upheld. (P.16)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872--Oral Evidence--Consent Decree--Setting aside of--Minor--Oral evidence that appellant was minor is of no consequence in absence of production of birth entry from office of Registrar (Birth and death) or from record of chowkidar.
(C) Evidence Act, 1872--Consent Decree--Setting aside of--Fraud and impersonation--Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, who after comparison questioned thumb impression of appellant on written statement of admission in previous suit with her specimen thumb impression on tallied with her specimen thumb impression--Contention of appellant that some lady impersonated her is without any substance. (P.9)
(D) Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Family Settlement--Consent decree--It with a view to put an end to any family dispute a settlement was arrived at as a result where of appellant and her mother relinquished their right and title in joint property in favour of her brother it could be said that there was legal and valid family settlement. (P.14)
(E) Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Family Settlement--Essentials of and binding effect--Put in concretized form--Matter reduced into form of following propositions as held in Kala and Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 807.
(F) Registration Act, 1908--Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Family Settlement--There was valid oral family settlement amongst parties--Decree did not create any right or title in land in dispute--Does not require registration.
(G) Registration Act, 1908--Hindu Succession Act, 1956--Consent Decree--Setting aside--Registration of--Appellant being a party to decree could not challenge on ground that same was not registered--Appellant not competent to challenge decree on ground of non-registration thereof.
(H) Limitation Act, 1963--Consent Decree--Setting aside of--Limitation--Decree passed on 24.1.1978--Appellant was party to same--Suit filed on 24.7.1999 i.e. after a period of 21 years--Is barred by time.

----------
Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.
906 - 2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M.S. Bedi
Crl. Misc. No. M-77844 of 2006
Shamsher Singh
v.
State of Punjab & Anr.
{Decided on 01/07/2009}
Present: Petitioner in person.
Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr.A.K. Walia, Advocate for the complainant.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A--Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, S.4--Quashing of FIR--Complaint against husband under Section 498-A and Section 4 of Dowry Act making allegation that he gave severe beatings to his wife and forcibly made her to consume acid--Petition for nullity of marriage filed under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act by petitioner pending before Civil Court--There are number of disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated while exercising inherent jurisdiction--Petition for quashment dismissed.

—————

No comments:

Post a Comment