Shabeg Singh v. Raj Kumar
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal
R.S.A.No.3087 of 2008
Shabeg Singh
v.
Raj Kumar
{Decided on 24/09/2008}
For the Appellant: Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate.
(A) Limitation Law--Acknowledgment--Suit for recovery--Defendant vide compromise deed accepted liability of outstanding amount of Rs.3,65,000/- which was to be deposited in two installments--Suit filed on 30.7.2001/1.8.2001 for recovery of loan amount--Cannot said to be beyond limitation on face of compromise deed dated 30.7.1998 and acknowledgment of existing debt by way of application admitting compromise in complaint filed by defendant--Contention that acknowledgement was made in criminal proceeding not tenable as Section 18 does not draw any distinction between civil and criminal proceedings but relates to acknowledgement of an existing debt--Suit for recovery decreed--|Limitation Act, 1963, Section 18. (Para 8 & 9)
(B) Limitation Law--Acknowledgment--Section 18 does not draw any distinction between civil and criminal proceedings but relates to acknowledgement of an existing debt--|Limitation Act, 1963, Section 18. (Para 8)
------------------
Kartar Singh v. Dilber Singh (dead) thr. LRs..
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla
R.S.A. No.2007 of 1982
Kartar Singh
v.
Dilber Singh (dead) thr. LRs..
{Decided on 04/11/2008}
For the Appellants: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.C. Dogra, Advocate with Mr. N.C. Doabia, Advocate.
(A) Succession Law--Will--Proof of--Suspicious circumstances--Proof of Will does not end with deposition of attesting witness and scribe-- Propounder of a Will is required to dispel any suspicious circumstances that may surround its execution--|Succession Act, 1925, Sections 59, 63, 67 and 68. (Para 14)
(B) Succession Law--Will--Execution of--Proof--Evidence adduced by the appellants riddled with contradictions--Appellant not only failed to prove execution of Will but also failed to dispel suspicious circumstances that shroud its execution--Held; Will is forged and fabricated document created by appellants to deprive respondents of their rightful inheritance--Concurrent findings by Courts below rejecting Will do not require interference--|Succession Act, 1925, Section 67 and 68. (Para 19)
CASECITE:
1. H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 (Para 14)
ajan Kaur v. Tarlok Singh
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harbans Lal
R.S.A. No.4157 of 2004
Bhajan Kaur
v.
Tarlok Singh
{Decided on 12/11/2008}
For the Appellants: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate.
(A) Pronote--Material alteration--Presumption--Suit for recovery on basis of pronote and receipt--Defendants denied execution and passing of consideration in relation to disputed pronote--Scribe of pronote was not, known to parties--As such he would not say who received loan amount and who gave it--Material alteration in pronote not explained by plaintiff nor same bear thumb impression of borrower or the signatures of the scribe--Attesting witness of receipt in his deposition affirmed that his signature were obtained at asking of deed writer and that he did not know defendants--Plaintiff also failed to examine Finger Print expert to prove that disputed pronote and receipt do bear thumb impression of deceased defendant--Suit for plaintiff dismissed--|Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118. (Para 9)
(B) Power of Attorney--Suit for recovery on basis of pronote--Evidence of power of attorney holder of plaintiff--Certain facts to which attorney holder could not give answer were in personal knowledge of plaintiff--Plaintiff to appeare as witness--Evidence of attorney holder not permissible. (Para 9)
------------------
Balwinder Kaur v. State of Haryana
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RSA No.1588 of 2006
Balwinder Kaur
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 04/11/2008}
For the Appellant: Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Medical Negligence--Failure of sterilization operation--Claim in such cases can be sustained only if there was negligence on the part of the surgeon in performing the surgery and not on account of child birth.
(A) Medical Negligence--Compensation--Failure of tubectomy operation--Appellant informed regarding chances of failure of tubectomy operation--No evidence to prove that she consulted doctor and informed him about failure of tubectomy operation otherwise she could have been relieved of unwanted child by adopting safer method of MTP--Appellant not entitled for compensation. (Para 11)
(B) Medical Negligence--Failure of sterilization operation--Compensation--Merely because a woman having undergone a sterilization operation became pregnant and delivered a child, the operating surgeon or his employer cannot be held liable for compensation on account of unwanted pregnancy or unwanted--Claim in such cases can be sustained only if there was negligence on the part of the surgeon in performing the surgery and not on account of child birth. (Para 6)
----------------
Surjit Kaur v. Bhupinder Kaur
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
RSA No.1175 of 2008
Surjit Kaur
v.
Bhupinder Kaur
{Decided on 17/11/2008}
For the Appellant: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Nabhewala, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Death of legatee--Where a bequest has been made to any child or other lineal descendant of the testator, and the legatee dies in the life time of the testator but any lineal descendant of his survives the testator, the bequest shall not lapse but shall take effect as if the death of the legatee had happened immediately after the death of the testator unless a contrary intention appears by the Will
(A) Succession Law-- Lineal consanguinity--Where a Will is executed by the testator jointly in the name of two legatees and one of legatee dies during the life time of testator leaving behind no lineal descendant who could survive the testator, the provisions of Section 109 of the Act, shall not apply, rather provisions of Section 106 of the Act, would apply and the mother who is a heir and not a lineal descendant cannot succeed under Section 109 of the Act--|Succession Act, 1925, Sections 25, 106 and 109. (Para 15)
(B) Succession Law-- Death of legatee--If a legacy is given to legatees categorically which would show that the testator intended to give them distinct shares, then, if any legatee dies during the life-time of the testator, so much of the legacy as was intended for him shall fell into the residue of the testator’s property--|Succession Act, 1925, Section 107. (Para 13)
(C) Succession Law--Death of legatee--Where a bequest has been made to any child or other lineal descendant of the testator, and the legatee dies in the life time of the testator but any lineal descendant of his survives the testator, the bequest shall not lapse but shall take effect as if the death of the legatee had happened immediately after the death of the testator unless a contrary intention appears by the Will--|Succession Act, 1925, Section 109. (Para 14)
--------------------