Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Bimal Kaur & Anr. v. Joginder Kaur
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
C.M. No. 5119-C of 2009 & R.S.A. No. 1757 of 2009 (O&M)
Bimal Kaur & Anr.
v.
Joginder Kaur
{Decided on 20/05/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. A.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Girish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Caveator / respondent: Mr. M.S. Sachdeva, advocate.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955--Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S.10--Legally wedded wife--Who can be said to be--Second marriage performed after coming in to force of Hindu Marriage Act--Marriage during the life time of one spouse is barred under Hindu Marriage Act--Such second wife cannot be considered as legally wedded wife--No right to claim inheritance being widow.

------------------
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A.No.1800 of 2009 (O&M)
Lakhvir Singh & Anr.
v.
Chanan Masih & Ors.
{Decided on 30/04/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate.
(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963--S.63--Agreement to Sell--Time fixed for execution of sale deed--Ready and willingness to perform their part of contract--Sellers expressed their willingness to carry out the execution of the sale deed--Gives legal notice--Buyer responded by stating that they were interested only in return of the amount--Safely can be concluded buyers were not to be ready and willing to perform their part.
(B) Specific Relief Act, 1963--S.63--Agreement to Sell--Undisputedly, buyers were not required to prove that they were ready with the balance sale consideration--But the question still remains that if a person pleads that he was present in the office of the Sub-Registrar with the balance amount on the date fixed, then this aspect of the matter assumes significance.
--------------
Ranjit v. Lilu Ram
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 1809 of 2009 (O&M)
Ranjit
v.
Lilu Ram
{Decided on 30/04/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate.
Specific Relief Act , 1963--Suit for Possession--By way of pre-emption on the basis of superior right of pre-emption being a tenant--Purchase of part of property--Specific khasra numbers sold--Joint property by giving all the numbers not sold--Cannot be construed as co sharer--Has no right to claim partition of whole of the land.
---------------