Table of Contents
📘 1. Chhote Khan & Others vs. Malkhan & Others (AIR 1954 SC 575)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justices Sudhi Ranjan Das, Ghulam Hasan, and B. Jagannadhadas
Citation: AIR 1954 SC 575
Facts:
The dispute involved co-owners of agricultural land in the village of Manota, Tehsil Ferozepore Jhirka, Gurgaon District. The defendants claimed a 4/5th share in the land and sought partition. The plaintiffs contended that an agreement in the Wajib-ul-arz (village administration record) during the 1938-39 settlement prohibited partition.
Legal Issue:
Whether the restriction on partition in the Wajib-ul-arz remained binding after the expiry of the settlement period.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the restriction on partition in the Wajib-ul-arz was binding only during the term of the settlement. Once the settlement expired, the restriction ceased to have effect. The Court emphasized that the right to partition is inherent in co-ownership unless explicitly and perpetually restricted.
Significance:
This case established that temporary administrative agreements like those in the Wajib-ul-arz do not permanently bar co-owners from seeking partition after the settlement period ends.
📘 2. Jaipal Singh vs. Kapoor Kaur (PLR 1967 Page 52)
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Citation: PLR 1967 Page 52
Facts:
The case dealt with the rights of a tenant under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. Jaipal Singh, the tenant, claimed occupancy rights over the land he had been cultivating, while Kapoor Kaur, the landowner, contested this claim.
Legal Issue:
Determination of occupancy rights under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and the conditions under which a tenant can claim such rights.
Judgment:
The Court analyzed the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and held that continuous and uninterrupted possession by a tenant for a specified period could confer occupancy rights. However, the tenant must fulfill all statutory conditions, including payment of rent and adherence to tenancy terms.
Significance:
This case clarified the criteria for establishing occupancy rights and reinforced the importance of compliance with tenancy laws for tenants seeking such rights.
📘 3. Gurmail Singh vs. P. Kumar (PLR 1970 Page 365)
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Citation: PLR 1970 Page 365
Facts:
Gurmail Singh, a tenant, was served with an eviction notice by P. Kumar, the landlord, under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The tenant contested the eviction, claiming protection under the Act.
Legal Issue:
Assessment of the grounds for eviction under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and the tenant’s rights to contest such eviction.
Judgment:
The Court examined the grounds for eviction stipulated in the Act and found that the landlord had not satisfied the necessary conditions for lawful eviction. Consequently, the eviction notice was deemed invalid.
Significance:
This case underscored the procedural safeguards available to tenants and the necessity for landlords to strictly adhere to statutory requirements when seeking eviction.
📚 Additional Relevant Case Laws
📘 4. Gurmail Singh vs. Udham Kaur (AIR 1999 PH 300; 1999 122 PLR 747)
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Citation: AIR 1999 PH 300; 1999 122 PLR 747
Facts:
Gurmail Singh purchased property without obtaining the consent of Udham Kaur, who had a pre-existing interest in the property.
Legal Issue:
Whether the sale of property without the consent of an interested party is valid.
Judgment:
The Court held that the sale was invalid due to the lack of consent from Udham Kaur, emphasizing the necessity of obtaining consent from all parties with a vested interest in the property.
Significance:
This case highlighted the importance of securing consent from all stakeholders in property transactions to ensure legal validity.
📘 5. Kehar Singh vs. Union of India (1989 AIR 653)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 1989 AIR 653
Facts:
Kehar Singh, convicted for the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, petitioned for mercy under Article 72 of the Constitution.
Legal Issue:
Scope of the President’s power under Article 72 concerning mercy petitions.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the President has the authority to scrutinize the evidence on record in a criminal case under Article 72 and arrive at a conclusion independent of the judiciary. However, the President’s decision is not subject to judicial review on merits.
Significance:
This case clarified the extent of the President’s clemency powers and the non-justiciable nature of such decisions.