Radhey Sham Kapoor v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Misc. No. M-6137 of 2009
Radhey Sham Kapoor
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 20/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shumaila Parvez, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior DAG Haryana.
For the Complainant: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate.
Criminal Law--Rape--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Petitioner’s son who was stated to be mentally retarded married to prosecutrix who was a divorcee--Allegation that she for a long period was raped by petitioner who was her father-in-law and daughter was born from loins of petitioner--Petitioner ready to under take DNA Test--Samples already taken to be sent to laboratory--Petitioner to remain on pre-arrest bail till the receipt of DNA report--Trial Court shall decide the regular bail application after taking into consideration report of DNA--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376, 323, 506, 120-B. (Paras 2 & 5)

2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
Civil Revision No.6107 of 2008
Bharat Kaushik
v.
Ashok Kumar Gulati
{Decided on 01/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate.
Civil Procedure--Amendment of pleadings--Agreement to sell--Leave of Court sought to delete an averment that the payment of an amount of Rs.15 lacs had been made by him against a receipt--Payment of amount is not in dispute--Only controversy is whether a separate receipt had been executed--Held; Allowance of the amendment plea would not change the very nature of suit which shall continue to be a suit for specific performance--Amendment allowed--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 14--Specific Relief Act, 1963.

----------------
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc. No.M-3546 of 2009
Satpal Sharma
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 01/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Complainant: Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate.
Criminal Law--Murder--Bail--Anticipatory Bail--Allegation that petitioner and his brother in connivance with police officials had killed deceased--Deceased was declared brought dead by hospital--Held; Main injury by danda blow on head of deceased was attributed to brother of petitioner and not petitioner--Discrepancies in statement of compliant to be gone after evidence has been led--Statement of police that custody of petitioner is not required for purpose of investigation--Bail granted--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438--Penal Code, 1860, Section 302.
------------------
Paul Kaur v. Punjab Wakf Board
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
Civil Revision No.4856 of 2006
Paul Kaur
v.
Punjab Wakf Board
{Decided on 01/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate.
(A) Revenue Law--Wakf land--A Statutory two months notice has to be compulsively served upon the Wakf Board before a suit against it comes to be filed--Wakf Act, 1995, Section 89. (Para 9)
(B) Revenue Law--Ownership--Claim of ownership over suit land on the basis of jamabandi entries--No documentary evidence how petitioner acquired title of the property--No material to indicate the source on the basis whereof entry came to be made in the 1990-91 Jambandi--Held; Mere fact that name of petitioner came to be entered as owner in 1990-91 Jambandi is not sufficient to uphold her claim of title--Punjab Land Revenue Act, (Para 6 & 7)
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta
Crl.R. No.979 of 2002
Sain Dass
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 01/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate.
For the Respondent. Mr. Amit Khatkar, Aag, Haryana.
Food Adulteration--Red Chilly Powder--Public Analyst held that the red chilly powder was found adulterated because of the presence of a small quantity of Haldi--The same was found because a common bamboo spoon was being used for lifting Haldi as well as red chilly powder and other food articles. Moreover, the Public Analyst has not mentioned in his report that the sample taken was injurious to health and was unfit for human consumption--Accused acquitted--Prevention of Fool Adulteration Act, 1954. (Para 6)
------------------
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. N. Mittal
F.A.O. No. 1551 of 2009
U. P. State Road Transport Corporation
v.
Smt. Attar Kali Devi
{Decided on 01/04/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate.
Accident Law--Driving Licence--Licence expired on 15.01.2004 and was got renewed w.e.f. 23.12.2004 i.e. two days after the accident--Licence had expired 11 months before accident and application for renewal thereof was not moved within 30 days of expiry of licence--Owner breached condition of policy by handing of vehicle to driver not holding valid licence--Insurance Company rightly exonerated from liability to pay--Motor Vehicles Act, 1963, Section 166. (Para 3)
CASES CITED:
1. Ishwar Chandra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2007 (2) Law Herald (SC) 1090 (Para 3)
2. Ram Babu Tiwari v. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. 2008 (5) Law Herald (SC) 3377 (Para 3)
------------------
Babu Lal v. Gram Panchayat
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 1825 of 2009
Babu Lal
v.
Gram Panchayat
{Decided on 01/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. R. Yadav, Advocate.
Civil Procedure--Injunction--Temporary injunction--Claim of ownership by adverse possession--Plea that defendants who was recorded to be owner of the suit property, were muslims, but they had left before 1947--Held; If property was owned by muslims owners who migrated to Pakistan, than same would not vest in Custodian as evacuee property and if it is part of shamlat deh, the same would vest in Gram Panchayat--Case for grant of temporary injunction not made out--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1 and 2.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 1830 of 2009
Bansi Lal
v.
Ajay Singh
{Decided on 01/04/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. C. Shahpuri, Advocate.
Civil Procedure--Additional Evidence--Accident claim--After closing oral evidence, petitioner was granted three opportunities for tendering the documents, but he did not tender any document in evidence--Also got his first application for additional evidence dismissed as withdrawn--Application rejected--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17.
--------------
Harish Chander (deceased) th. LRs v. Mohinder Singh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.1477 of 1989 (O&M)
Harish Chander (deceased) th. LRs
v.
Mohinder Singh
{Decided on 27/01/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Himani Sarin, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
(A) Rent Law--Rent deed--Non registration of--Document purports to be for a period of two months and neither the provisions of the Indian Registration Act nor the Transfer of Property Act require registration in respect of tenancies for a period less than of one year. (Para 5)
(B) Registration Law--Non registered document--An instrument which is required to be registered but not so registered would still be admissible for proving the character of possession which is a collateral purpose and excepted by Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act.
(C) Evidence Law--Admission--A statement made to a third party is not such as to affect an admission of the party himself--A statement to a party will constitute an admission while a statement to a third party to a transaction would be merely a statement which could still be explained. (Para 6)
.
--------------
Sajjinder Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Criminal Misc.- M No.1745 of 2009
Sajjinder Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 06/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate.
Criminal Law--Bail--Offence under Section 382--Challan filed--Case is triable by JMIC--Petitioner after arrest is in custody--Trial in case likely to take time--Petitioner admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond and surety--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--Penal Code, 1860, Section 382. (Paras 2 & 3)
----------
State of Punjab v. Gurnam Kaur
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu
Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 2007
State of Punjab
v.
Gurnam Kaur
{Decided on 06/03/2009}
IMPORTANT POINT
Discovery of Fact--If by a reason of statements made by an accused some facts have been discovered, the same would be admissible against the person who had made the statement in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
(A) Contraband--Search--Appeal against acquittal--Recovery of contraband--High Court found that no independent witness was examined--Ladies were personally searched by the male officers in violation of sub-section 4 of Section 50 of the Act--There are several infirmities in the prosecution case--Prosecution has not examined any independent witness--Why independent witnesses could not be found has not been explained--No explanation has been furnished as to why the first information report was lodged after 11 hours and why the mandatory provisions of subsection 2 of Section 42 of the Act had not been complied with--Appeal dismissed--Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27--Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 18, 20, 42 and 50. (Para 9 to 17)
(B) Evidence Law--Discovery of facts--If by a reason of statements made by an accused some facts have been discovered, the same would be admissible against the person who had made the statement in terms of section 27 of the Evidence Act--Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27. (Para 15)

2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.5568 of 1999 (O&M)
Sagar Singh Slathia
v.
Surinder Pal Singh
{Decided on 29/01/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate and Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment of pleadings--Court shall be more lenient in the matter of a written statement filed by a defendant than a plaintiff’s plaint.
(A) Civil Procedure--Amendment of pleading--Law summed up as follows--
(i) Amendment of pleadings could be introduced under the circumstances which showed that there had been an accidental mistake or error that required to be rectified by appropriate altered pleadings or to bring to fore the changed circumstances or position of law.
(ii) The attempt of the Court shall always be to secure the truth and to advance the cause of justice. If any mistake had arisen in the pleadings, parties should be allowed to amend the pleadings.
(iii) Admissions are the best form of evidence which a party can rely against the other, but such admissions could always be explained whether the admission was made under the circumstances that either vitiated the admission or explained the admission.
(iv) The amendment of pleadings are brought out only to eliminate surprise at the trial for allowing the parties to make the correct statements of facts, so that no fact which is inconsistent with pleading is ever brought before the Court through documents or evidence.
(v) The pleadings form the bedrock of the legal edifice brought to Court for adjudication and if there has been any inadvertent error, it shall be not allowed to come in way to fetter the rights of parties interminably--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17. (Para 8)
(B) Civil Procedure--Amendment of pleading--Test for permission--The question whether an amendment could be made or not, could be tested on the touchstone of what will emerge if the amendment is not allowed--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 6, Rule 17. (Para 10)
(C) Civil Procedure--Amendment of pleading--An amendment of pleadings that throws out the grave portents of fresh defence at the stage of execution is verily a possibility that we will have to stave off. (Para 11)

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

Bhagwat Dayal v. State of Punjab
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
CWP No. 10760 of 2005
Bhagwat Dayal
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 17/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.P. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Madhu Dayal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. A.P.S. Mann, Advocate.
Municipal Law--Election of Municipal council--Reservation for Backward classes in successive three elections is on account of coincidence and on account of change of circumstances in each election--Election in year 2000 was held after municipal units were extended, whereas in year 2004 the number of wards have been increased on account of increase in population--Such increase in population and consequent change of wards is in terms of Rule 4(ii) of Rules--Therefore, principle of rotation cannot be enforced in respect of reservation of ward no.2 for backward classes--Reservation of ward no.2 for backward classes not illegal--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 243 T--Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, Section 8--Delimitation of Wards of Municipalities Rules, 1974, Rule 4 & 6. (Para 7)

------------------
Notan Dass v. State of Haryana
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.12377 of 2007
Notan Dass
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 20/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana.
For the Respondent No.9: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate.
(A) Revenue Law--Ejectment--Non payment of rent--If rent is not tendered within stipulated period ejectment is to follows--Commissioner not justified in remanding matter to Assistant Collector with direction to summon respondent no.6 to 8 tenants and ask them to tender rent--Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, Section 14 A (i). (Para 6)
(B) Revenue Law--Sub-Tenancy--There is dispute regarding tenancy coupled with fact that respondent no.9 has prima facie placed material on record to indicate that he had deposited the rent--Matter remanded to assistant Collector 1st Grade to determine whether respondent no.9 is a direct tenant under petitioner and whether receipts which he had tendered was for payment of any rent--No interference warranted--Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, Section 14 a (i). (Para 8) CASES CITED:
--------------------
S.G.P.C. v. Mahant Prem Dass
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S.Sirpurkar
Civil Appeal No. 1767 of 2002
Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee
v.
Mahant Prem Dass
{Decided on 24/02/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Jaspal Singh, Sr. Adv., Mehul Sharma, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.K. Palli, Sr. Adv., A.V. Palli, Atul Sharma, Mrs. Rekha Palli. Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Sikh Gurdwara--Dera of followers of Udasi faith is not a Sikh Gurdwara
(A) Sikh Gurdwara--Petition for declaring Institution as Sikh Gurdwara--Institution called "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan" claimed by SGPC that it was Sikh Gurdwara--High Court was absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that the Institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara, but an Udasi Dera--Institution was governed by a chain of Udasi Mahants without break in the tradition of the succession from Guru to Chela--There is no evidence of there being a regular Granthi in the Institution and there does not existed even a Nishan Sahib.-- There was no further evidence that the Sikh religious ceremonies were ever held--Shri Guru Granth Sahib, though was kept, did not have a fixed place for its Parkash--There was clear evidence that there was Gola Sahib, Murti of Baba Siri Chand, Smadhs of earlier Mahants and other objects of worship like photographs etc. and Shri Guru Granth Sahib was only kept as a book of reverence--Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925, Section 16(2)(ii) and 16(16)(v). (Para 43 and 44)
(B) Sikh Gurdwara--Whether a Dera of followers of Udasi faith is a Sikh Gurdwara? NO-Held; Udasis formed an independent Sect, they do venerate Sikh scriptures and, therefore, in the Institution of Udasi Sect, one can visualize reading of Granth Sahib or veneration of Sikh scriptures, but, that itself is not decisive of the character of the Institution--Where the succession was from Guru to Chela and those Gurus were followers of Udasis faith and the Institution was known as Dera of Udasi Bhekh and they followed some of the practices of Hindu traditional religion, such things were completely destructive of the character of the Institution as Sikh Gurdwara-- High Court was absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that the Institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara, but an Udasi Dera--Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925, Section 16(2)(ii).
----------------------

Municipal Corporation Faridabad v. M/s Janta Steel
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 1145 of 2009 (O&M)
Municipal Corporation Faridabad
v.
M/s Janta Steel and Metal Co-operative Industrial Society Ltd.
{Decided on 17/03/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
House Tax--Order of assessment of rent tax value not passed by competent Authority--Section 362 cannot be invoked to make it legal or as per statutory law.
(A) Municipal Law--House Tax--Assessment of Rental value--House Tax--Jurisdiction of Civil Court--Once it is proved that order was totally without jurisdiction and passed by a person not competent to pass such order jurisdiction of Civil Court is not passed--Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, Sections 97, 141. (Para 12)
(B) Municipal Law--House Tax--Assessment of Rental value--Order of assessment of rent tax value not passed by competent Authority--Section 362 cannot be invoked to make it legal or as per statutory law--Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, Sections 362. (Para 14 & 15)


Jasmair v. Ram Bhagat
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand
Civil Revision No. 840 of 2008
Jasmair
v.
Ram Bhagat
{Decided on 18/03/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Advalorem Court Fee--Validity of sale deed executed by father and brother in respect of coparcenary property challenged--Allegation that sale deed is without consideration and legal necessity--Plaintiff, coparcener not liable to pay ad valorem court fee.
Court Fee--Advalorem Court Fee--Validity of sale deed executed by father and brother in respect of coparcenary property challenged--Allegation that sale deed is without consideration and legal necessity--Plaintiff, coparcener not liable to pay ad valorem court fee--Court Fee Act. (Para 4 & 14)


------------------
HUDA v. Vipin Sharma
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 3903 of 2008 (O&M)
Haryana Urban Development Authority
v.
Vipin Sharma
{Decided on 18/03/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Resumption of Booth--No order of resumption could be passed under Section 17 qua violations covered under Section 55 of HUDA Act.
Jurisdiction of Civil Court could not be said to be barred as authorities under Act admittedly acted in violation of provisions of the act itself in ordering resumptions of booth by invoking provisions of Section 17 instead of by invoking provisions of Section 17 instead of specific provisions in Act dealing with such violation.
(A) Land and Property Law--Resumption of booth--No order of resumption could be passed under Section 17 qua violations covered under Section 55--Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, Sections 17, 18 and 55.
(B) Land and Property Law--Resumption of booth--Jurisdiction of Civil Court--Jurisdiction of Civil Court could not be said to be barred as authorities under Act admittedly acted in violation of provisions of the act itself in ordering resumptions of booth by invoking provisions of Section 17 instead of specific provisions in Act dealing with such violation--Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, Sections 17, 18 and 55.

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


2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
Civil Revision No.1217 of 2007
Dharam Kaur
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 01/09/2008}
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.S. Lobana, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Stamp Law--Under valued Instruments--In two contingencies jurisdiction can be exercised i.e. on receipt of reference from the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of District--The Collector may also suo motu take action--Provision of Section 47-A(3) does not specifically mention that the exercise of powers suo motu is to be done by him or it can also be at the instance of aggrieved party or any other person--Thus, it would be immaterial whether the Collector is moved by the Registrar or any person uninterested, interested or aggrieved--Thus, no fault can be found with the cognizance taken by the Collector under Section 47-A(3) of the Act--Stamp Act, 1899, Section 47-A.
----------------
Baljinder Kaur v. Rajesh Kumar
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No. 912 of 2005
Baljinder Kaur
v.
Rajesh Kumar
{Decided on 09/12/2008}
For the Appellant: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
(A) Civil Procedure--Replication--Contention that plea taken up by the appellant in written statement has not been controverted by the plaintiff by filing replication--Held; Admittedly, the replication was filed, which was signed by the counsel for the plaintiff--It is well established that the Advocate appearing on behalf of his client is authorized to plead his case--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rule 27. (Para 21)
(B) Civil Procedure--Additional evidence--Rightly rejected as the evidence sought to be produced by the appellant by way of additional evidence was within her knowledge but she did not produce the same earlier at the time when she was leading evidence in the trial court and no plausible explanation has been given for not producing this evidence earlier--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rule 27.
------------
Adhishwar Parshad Jain v. Inder Parkash
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.1659 of 1989
Adhishwar Parshad Jain
v.
Inder Parkash
{Decided on 21/01/2009}
For the Petitioners: Mr. M.L. Sarin Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alka Sarin and Ms. Himani Sarin, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain and Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocates.
(A) Rent Law--Eviction--Impairing the value and utility of building--Any steps by a tenant on his own initiative to ensure that there is no leakage in the ceiling or making some wooden racks and almirahs for storing his goods or ensuring better safety to a building by providing for rolling shutters ought not to be understood as acts that materially impaired the value or utility of the building--East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(2) (iii). (Para 9)
(B) Rent Law--Eviction--Impairing the value and utility of building--Removal of wall by tenant--Filing of petition after four years--Held; Alterations had been done and admitted by the tenant, do not render him vulnerable for eviction by the Act of the landlord coming to Court four years after the so-called alterations and they constitute a waiver and acquiescence--East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 13(2) (iii). (Para 13)
(C) Rent Law--Revision--At the stage of revision, the latitude of enquiry normally does not traverse beyond examining the legality and propriety of the order and the finding regarding whether there had been material impairment or not would merely be taken only as statement of fact that would call for no inference--East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, Section 15. (Para 6)
--------------------
Raghbir Singh (D) tho. LRs. v. Jarnail Singh (D) tho. LRs.
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma
RSA No. 1080 of 1991
Raghbir Singh (D) tho. LRs.
v.
Jarnail Singh (D) tho. LRs.
{Decided on 21/03/2009}
For the Appellants No.1 and 2: Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate.
For the Appellant No.3: Mr.R.K.Joshi, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr.V.K.Jain, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Prashant Vashisth, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Will--Will did not stipulate as to what would happen in case wife preceased executant--Bequeath in favour of wife lapsed and property in her share was to be treated intestate--Her share was to inherited by all legal heirs as per law of succession.
(A) Registration Law--Collusive decree--Validity of--Family settlement--Suit filed on basis of family settlement admitted by ‘R’ who suffered consent decree--Possibility of fraud and misrepresentation missing as ‘R’ did not challenge decree during his lifetime--Specific mention of decree in will executed by ‘R’ in favour of defendants (son) excluding plaintiff (sons)--No fault in finding that in view of transfer in favour of son decree did not require registration--Registration Act, Section 17(2) (vi). (Para 46)
(B) Family Settlement--Will--Validity of--Subscribe proved execution of Will--Attesting witnesses dead--Factum of previous will duly referred in subsequent will by executant--No suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will as reason for bequeathing property in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 (sons) was mentioned by executant--Second will holograph which is admittedly written by executant with his own handwriting--No evidence led to show that testator was not of sound disposing mind--Validity of Will upheld--Succession Act, 1925, Section 63. (Paras 48, 50 & 52)
(C) Registration Law--Will--Will did not stipulate as to what would happen in case wife preceased executant--Bequeath in favour of wife lapsed and property in her share was to be treated intestate--Her share was to inherited by all legal heirs as per law of succession--Succession Act, 1925, Section 105. (Paras 12 and 13 II)

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