Gulzar Singh v. Julphan
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
R.S.A. No. 972 of 2007 (O&M)
Gulzar Singh
v.
Julphan & Ors.
{Decided on 12/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate.
Mulla’s Principle of Mohammedan Law--Property of Minor--The property of a minor Mohammedan can be sold only if the sale is for the benefit of the estate and it further complies with the stipulation under section 362 of the Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law--Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act was not applicable nor could the permission be granted under the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 in the absence of conditions provided under section 362 of the Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law having been complied with. (P.14 and 15)
--------------------
Dass Kumar v. Tilak Raj
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
Civil Revision No.1491 of 1989 (O&M)
Dass Kumar & Ors.
v.
Tilak Raj & Anr.
{Decided on 03/02/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate & Mr. Chetan Slathia, Advocate for Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate.
(A) East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949--Tenancy by Implication--The landlord himself had no explanation to offer as to why rent receipts were issued also in the names of respondent Nos.2 to 4. Issuing a receipt in the nature of a tenant but delivering it to a person under the employment of a tenant itself will not be artificial--The issuance of receipts for rent in the name of the partnership containing the names of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is a positive act on the part of the landlord creating a tenancy by implication in favour of the partnership. It is, therefore, not a case of a tenancy in favour of an individual where an individual enters into a partnership arrangement without reference to the landlord and later the individual withdrawing their partnership. On the other hand, it is a case of the original tenancy being in the name of an individual but later the tenancy itself has enured in favour of the partnership by the express conduct of the landlord, creating the tenancy in favour of partnership by receiving the rents from the partnership and issuing the receipts in the name of the partnership. (P.8)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.105--East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, S.2--Lease--Definition of--The expression lease itself is not defined under the Rent Restriction Act and by the definition as contained under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease could be either expressed or implied. While the express terms of the lease under Ex.A-2 was in favour of the individual, the issuance of receipt in the name of the partnership subsequently by the landlord created a tenancy by implication in favour of the partnership. (P.9)
----------------------
Surat Singh Rathee v. Umed Singh
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2281
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.2611 of 2007 (O&M)
Surat Singh Rathee
v.
Umed Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 12/05/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr. H.S. Hooda, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gaurav Singh Hooda, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Nemo.
IMPORTANT POINT
Res-judicata--If a person does not raise a plea which is available to him in one proceedings, he is not competent to raise the same in the subsequent suit or in such an eventuality, the subsequent proceedings are hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.2, R.2--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.11--Claim--Suit to include whole claim--Res-judicata--If a person does not raise a plea which is available to him in one proceedings, he is not competent to raise the same in the subsequent suit or in such an eventuality, the subsequent proceedings are hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. (P.13 to 17)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.2, R.2--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.11--Resjudicata--Redemption of mortgage--A prayer has been made claiming ownership of the suit property by pleading that the appellant was competent to redeem the mortgage by paying the mortgage amount. Such a plea was available to the appellant when he along with brother filed the previous suit, but no such prayer was raised by him--Once the appellant did not raise a plea which was available him, the subsequent suit would obviously be hit by the principle of constructive res judicata. (P.13)
----------------------
