Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Balwant Singh & Anr. v. Buta Ram & Ors.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
R.S.A. No. 1871 of 2007 & R.S.A. No. 2761 of 2007
Balwant Singh & Anr.
v.
Buta Ram & Ors.
{Decided on 13/07/2009}
For the Appellant in R.S.A. No. 1871 of 2007: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 (contesting): Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate.
For the Appellant in R.S.A. No. 2761 of 2007: Mr. Aashish Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 (contesting): Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate.
The remaining respondents in both the appeals are proforma-respondents.
IMPORTANT POINT
Bonafide Purchaser--Purchaser who purchased land in dispute during pendency of suit could not be said to be bonafide purchase for valuable consideration goodfaith without any notice.
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963--Agreement to sell--Validity of--Scribe of agreement to sell proved execution--Thumb impression of vendor found on agreement to sell--Execution legality and validity of agreement of sell stood proved--Agreement to sell not result of fraud--Suit for specific performance rightly decreed.
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963--Agreement to sell--Plaintiff ready and willing to perform his own part of contract--Defendants breached terms and conditions thereof--Concurrent finding of fact of Courts below based on correct appreciation of evidence and law--Suit of specific performance rightly decreed.
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.2, R.2--Specific performance--Suit for specific performance not filed on basis of same cause of action on basis where of earlier suits for permanent injunctions were filed--Earlier suits filed on different cause of action and same were not decided on merits--Present suit for specific performance not barred under Order 2 and Rule 2. (P.15)
(D) Specific Relief Act, 1963--Agreement to sell--Specific performance--Limitation--Intention of parties as to when period of limitation was to start running was required to be gathered form terms and conditions of agreement to sell--Plaintiff had to approach defendants for execution of sale deed after one month from date of passing title--Title passed on defendants on 28.1.94 i.e. when conveyance deed was executed in their favour--Suit filed on 12.10.96 i.e. within three years was thus within period of limitation. (P.16)
(E) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.41 & 52--Bonafide purchaser--Lis pendence--A person who purchases property during pendency of lis is governed by S. 52 of T.P Act--He purchases property at his own risk and cost and is ultimately bound by the decree which may be passed in the suit-- No protection to such vendee under Section 41 of TPA is available. (P.7)
(F) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.41 & 52--Bonafide purchaser--Lis pendence--Whether purchase who purchased land in dispute during pendency of suit could be said to be bonafide purchase for valuable consideration good faith without any notice--Held NO. (P. 17)
-----------------
Gurdial Singh & Anr. v. Nand Kaur & Ors.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Regular Second Appeal No.570 of 1994
Gurdial Singh & Anr.
v.
Nand Kaur & Ors.
{Decided on 08/07/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881--Pronote--Suit for Recovery--Scribe of pronote and attesting witnesses of receipt duly proved execution of pronote--Presumption that same was for valid consideration not rebutted--Pronote rightly and were not forged document--Suit decreed.. (P.12,13,14 &15)
----------
Krishan Kumar & Anr. v. Sita Ram Adalakha & Ors.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2534
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder
Civil Revision No. 350 of 2009
Krishan Kumar & Anr.
v.
Sita Ram Adalakha & Ors.
{Decided on 14/07/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Closing of Evidence--Tenancy case--Execution proceedings--Though there was negligence on part of petitioner but he cannot be penalized to such an extent as may occasion injustice to him
Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Closing of Evidence--Tenancy case--Execution proceedings--Objection petition--In case diet money is deposited for summoning of witnesses then it was duty of Court to effect their service--Petitioner will not able to prove his right of tenancy in case impugned order closing his evidence is not set-aside--Though there was negligence on part of petitioner but he cannot be penalized to such an extent as may occasion injustice to him--Impugned order set aside subject to payment of cost to opposite party--Two opportunities granted to produce evidence. (P.7 & 8)
---------------