Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Ramji Lal Ram Lal And Anr. vs State Of Punjab Through Secretary To ... on 6 December, 1965

Jagtar Singh vs Jhabbar Singh And Ors. on 17 August, 2007

Learned Counsel submitted that these category of cases have been over-ruled by the Supreme Court in Shyam Sunder's case (supra) and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramji Lal's case (supra) was approved while holding that in a suit for pre-emption, the claimant must prove that his right to pre-empt subsisted till the date of the decree of the first court and that loss of the right after the date of the decree by an act beyond his control did not affect his claim in the suit. Therefore, learned Counsel submitted that on the date of passing of the decree by the trial Court, the superior right of the plaintiff to pre-empt the sale was subsisting, as by that time, the suit land was not finally partitioned and he was a co-sharer in the joint land on the date of passing of the decree i.e. 1.12.1982. Therefore, the impugned judgments and decree, passed by the courts below, are liable to be set aside and suits of the plaintiff deserve to be decreed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S K Mittal - Full Document

Raj Singh Etc vs Jage Ram And Others on 21 August, 2024

19. The Constitution Bench in case of Shyam Sunder and Others vs. Ram Kumar and Another (2001) 8 SCC 24 also while examining the issues whether in a suit for pre-emption, the pre- emptor should possess his right to pre-empt on the date of sale and on the date of the decree of the First Court, and whether the loss of that right after the date of decree either by his own act or by an act beyond his control or by any subsequent change in the legislation which is prospective in operation during the pendency of the appeal filed against the decree of the Court of First instance, would affect the right of the pre-emptor or not, has laid down certain principles, after making analysis of various decisions including the decision of the Full Bench rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ramji Lal vs. State of Punjab (supra).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V Bahl - Full Document

Rachna Mediratta And Ors vs Girdhari Lal And Anr on 5 July, 2023

The law stated in Ramji Lal v. State of Punjab [AIR 1966 Punj 374 : ILR (1966) 2 Punj 125] is sound: "Courts, do very often take notice of events that happen subsequent to the filing of suits and at times even those that have occurred during the appellate stage and permit pleadings to be amended for including a prayer for relief on the basis of such events but this is ordinarily done to avoid multiplicity of proceedings or when the original relief claimed has, by reason of change in the circumstances, become inappropriate and not when the plaintiff's suit would be wholly displaced by the proposed amendment (see Steward v. North Metropolitan Tramways Company [[1885] 16 Q.B.D. 178]) and a fresh suit by him would be so barred by limitation."
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Lalit Lazarus vs Smt. Lavina Lazarus And Anr. on 24 November, 1978

In that case the plaintiffs suit for eviction on the ground that he required the suit accommodation for starting business was negatived because of the subsequent event. However, he was permitted to amend his plaint to seek the relief of eviction on other grounds. The Supreme Court has approved the following 2 decisions. The first is Patterson v. State of Alabama (1934) 294 US 600 that "where the nature of the relief, as originally sought, has become obsolete or unserviceable or a new form of relief will be more efficacious on account of developments subsequent to the suit or even during the appellate stage, it is but fair that the relief is moulded, varied or reshaped in the light of updated facts," The second case is Ramji Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 Punj 374 (FB), in which it was observed "Courts do very often take notice of events that happen subsequent to the filing of suits and at times even those that have occurred during the appellate stage and permit pleadings to be amended for including a prayer for relief on the basis of such events but this is ordinarily done to avoid multiplicity of proceedings or when the original relief claimed has, by reason of change in the circumstances, become inappropriate and not when the plaintiff's suit would be wholly displaced by the proposed amendment and a fresh suit by him would be so barred by limitation".
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Gurdev Singh And Ors. vs Mohna Ram And Ors. on 18 March, 1969

12. Whereas it was held by Full Bench of this Court in Ramji Lal Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1966 Punj 374 (FB) that the question as tow when a decree holder's title to the property would be completed seemed to be besides the point for determining the right of pre-emption it is the said question with which we are concerned for correctly interpreting Section 19-A. The Full Bench observed:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Santokh Singh vs Lijja Ram And Anr. on 15 May, 1986

In the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ramji Lal's case (AIR 1966 Punj 374) (supra), the pre-emptor's suit was decreed by the trial Court. During the pendency of the first appeal by the vendees therein, the State Government issued a notification under S. 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 declaring that no right of pre-emption shall exist with respect to the sale of land described in the Schedule appended thereto. The pre-emptors challenged the said notification by way of a civil writ petition in this Court. On a reference by a learned single judge, the matter was referred to the Full Bench where three question were considered. Question No. 1 therein is material for determining the controversy and the other two question need not be noticed. It reads,--
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next