SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(P&H) 111

I.S.TIWANA
Balwinderjit Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab – Respondent


Judgment

1. The petitioner impugns the order of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, dt 14th Aug. 1985, Annexure-P1, whereby her prayer under Section 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act for partition of the land in question has been rejected on the ground that since there was a question of title involved the subordinate revenue authorities should stay their hands till that question of title was settled either by the Assistant Collector First Grade himself constituting into a Court or by the Civil Court under the Civil P.C. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, the following facts deserve to be noticed.

2. On 19th Mar. 1958, the petitioner agreed to purchase the share of Kartar Singh son of Mit Singh in the suit land which he was holding jointly with Paramjit Singh and Jagjit Singh sons of Phula Singh in equal shares, i.e., one-third. As prior to the date of the performance of this agreement Paramjit Singh and Jagjit Singh purchased the share of Kartar Singh (one-third share in the joint holding), the petitioner filed a suit against them all, i.e., Kartar Singh, Paramjit Singh and Jagjit Singh for the specific performance of the agreement d




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top