Jagroop Singh v. Boria Khan (dead) through LRs
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajive Bhalla
ESA No.3066 of 2006
Jagroop Singh
v.
Boria Khan (dead) through LRs
{Decided on 04/11/2008}
For the Appellants: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. H.R. Kapil, Advocate.
(A) Specific Performance--Agreement to sell--Land owner entered into agreement to sell with B--Later on also with S for the same property--Held; Prior agreement to sell and prior suit confer right upon B to assert that the decree passed in favour of S, the attachment effected is execution there of and the sale held and confirmed in favour of S, would not effect his rights of B--|Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 38, Rule 10. (Para 14)
(B) Specific Performance--Agreement to sell--Attachment--Agreement for sale creates an obligation attached to the ownership of the property and an attachment made in execution of a decree would not be free from the obligations incurred under a prior contract for sale--|Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Paras 14 & 18)
(C) Specific Performance--Agreement to sell--Attachment--Sale creates an obligation attached to the ownership of property and since the attaching creditor is entitled to attach only the right, title and interest of the judgment debtor, the attachment cannot be free from the obligations incurred under the contract for sale--|Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Para 14 & 18 )
--------------
Budh Dass, Mahant …v. Gram Panchayat, Jhansa
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 922
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.997 of 2009 (O&M)
Budh Dass, Mahant Kutia Narain Dass Jamna Dass.
v.
Gram Panchayat, Jhansa
{Decided on 04/03/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Nemo.
Revenue Law--Shamlat deh--Place of worship--Injunction--2 kanals of Land was being used as place of worship where kutia and other structure existed--Remaining land lying vacant and was used for cultivation of grass etc--Appellant-defendant restranined from raising construction on vacant land--However, possession of appellant qua 2 kanal land protected--|Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Section 2(g)(i). (Para 14, 15, 16 & 17)
------------
Shamsher Singh v. Ram Rishi
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No. 3453 of 2007
Shamsher Singh
v.
Ram Rishi
{Decided on 22/01/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate.
Family Settlement--Collusive Decree--Decree suffered on 9.2.1988 on basis of Family Settlement--No attempt made by appellant to challenge decree during his lifetime--Plea of fraud not established--No attempt made to challenge decree during lifetime of predecessor-in-interest of appellant--Suit of appellant rightly dismissed.
-----------
Raj Kumar Verma v. Surinder Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) 926
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.7217 of 2008
Raj Kumar Verma
v.
Surinder Singh
{Decided on 09/01/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S. Kohli, Advocate.
Rent Law--Rent Controller--The issue for an adjudication before the Rent Controller is the existence of a jural relationship of a tenant and the landlord. In the application, if any other issue relating to title would arise between the parties to the lis as regards bona fide denial of title, then it shall be always open for the Rent Controller to secure the attendance of every party, who would be interested in obtaining adjudication on such issues, to be brought on record. (Para 4)
--------------