FAO No. 5500 of 2006 *** Present : Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** On request of learned counsel for respondent No.1, adjourned to 12.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit FAO No. 5501 of 2006 *** Present : Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** List along with FAO No. 5500 of 2006 on 12.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit FAO No. 5502 of 2006 *** Present : Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** List along with FAO No. 5500 of 2006 on 12.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit FAO No. 5503 of 2006 *** Present : Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** List along with FAO No. 5500 of 2006 on 12.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit FAO No. 5504 of 2006 *** Present : Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** List along with FAO No. 5500 of 2006 on 12.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit FAO No. 1105 of 2007 (O & M) *** Present : Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate. *** On request, adjourned to 12.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit FAO No. 1106 of 2007 (O & M) *** Present : Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate. *** On request, adjourned to 12.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit FAO No. 1107 of 2007 (O & M) *** Present : Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate. *** On request, adjourned to 12.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit FAO No. 1108 of 2007 (O & M) *** Present : Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate. *** On request, adjourned to 12.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit FAO No. 1109 of 2007 (O & M) *** Present : Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate. *** On request, adjourned to 12.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit C.M. Nos. 4758-59-C of 2008 and RSA No. 3214 of 2007 *** Present : Mr. IS Brar, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. *** C.M. Nos. 4758-59-C of 2008 Copy of the order dated 02.05.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot and copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 of Village Kot Sukhia attached with the C.Ms. are taken on record subject to just exceptions. C.Ms. stand disposed of. RSA No. 3214 of 2007 Let the records of the Courts below be requisitioned by the adjourned date. List for hearing on 17.07.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit RSA No. 3229 of 2004 *** Present : Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** On request of learned counsel for respondent No.1, adjourned to 12.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit RSA No. 3230 of 2004 *** Present : Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Advocate for Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** On request of learned counsel for respondent No.1, adjourned to 12.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit RSA No. 1359 of 2005 *** Present : None for the appellants. Mr. Dharamvir, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.5 and 6. *** Records of the Courts below have been received. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 prays for time to inspect the same. On his request, adjourned to 18.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit RSA No. 1574 of 2005 *** Present : Mr. OP Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok K. Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. *** Vakalatnama of Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 8 is already on record. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 21.08.2008. Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate be informed of the date fixed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit C.M. No. 21178 -CII of 2006 in FAO No. 4828 of 2006 *** Present : Mr. M.S. Randhawa, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Thobdia, Advocate for Mr. Malkiat Singh Mohali, Advocate for respondent Nos.1(i) & (ii) and 2. Mr. Samir Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** As per office report, service is complete. On request of learned counsel for the appellant, adjourned to 21.08.2008. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit C.M. No. 4762-C of 2008 and RSA No. 1517 of 2008 *** Present : Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate for the defendants-appellants. *** RSA No. 1517 of 2008 Learned counsel for the appellants has inter alia submitted that the agreement dated 08.10.1998 (Ex.P1) is not signed by Sanjiv Anand – vendee. Besides, the signatures of Gobinder Chaudhary-the vendor have been denied. It is submitted that there is no parentage or complete addresses of the marginal witnesses and one of the marginal witnesses namely Arun Kumar was not examined. It is also submitted that the said agreement has not been scribed by a regular deed writer. It is submitted that Sh. Gobinder Chaudhary who is alleged to have executed the agreement (Ex.P1) on 08.10.1998 died eleven days thereafter on 19.10.1998. The plaintiffs who claim themselves to be vendees and successors-in-interest of Sanjiv Anand never issued any notice of the alleged agreement dated 08.10.1998 (Ex.P1) to the defendants-appellants. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and perusing the record, the following question of law arises for consideration in this case:- (1)What is the effect on an agreement to sell, which is not scribed by a regular deed writer, without C.M. No. 4762-C of 2008 [2] and RSA No. 1517 of 2008 parentage and addresses of the marginal witnesses, without signatures of the vendee and one of the marginal witness not being examined? Admitted. C.M. No. 4762-C of 2008 Notice regarding stay for 30.09.2008. Meanwhile, execution of the impugned decree shall remain stayed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No. 174 of 2008 Date of decision : May 21, 2008 Poonam ..... Petitioner Versus Anil ..... Respondent Present : Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S. SARON, J. (ORAL) This petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed for transferring of the case titled Anil versus Poonam pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Kaithal to the Court of District Judge, Jind. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 08.03.2007 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After sometime, matrimonial dispute arose between the parties. The petitioner has filed two petitions in the Court at Jind. One petition has been filed under Section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance and second petition has been filed for initiating proceedings under Section 498-A IPC against the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that aforesaid two petitions have been filed by the petitioner-wife as she T.A. No. 174 of 2008 [2] was harassed by her husband-respondent. It is submitted that the distance from Jind to Kaithal is more than 70 Kms and it is very difficult for the petitioner to travel and to go to Kaithal as she is a lady. Besides, there is no other male member in her family to accompany her except her father who is bed-ridden. It is also stated that petitioner has to look after her old aged father who, it is stated, is bed-ridden and therefore, not in a position to attend the Court at Kaithal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the case of Deepika v. Vinod Bhalla, 2004(3) PLR 751 to contend that the convenience of wife is to be given preference and that provision has been made to that effect in Section 19 of the Act itself. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may be noticed that two petitions have been filed by the petitioner in the Courts at Jind. The distance between Jind to Kaithal is about 70 Kms. The petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“Act” - for short) has been filed by the respondent by averring that the parties to the petition last resided at Village Pai, Tehsil and District Kaithal which is within the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge at Kaithal and therefore, the said Court has the jurisdiction to try the petition. The provisions of Section 19(iii) of the Act envisages that every petition under the said Act is to be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the parties of the marriage last T.A. No. 174 of 2008 [3] resided together. The petition under Section 13 filed by the respondent records that the parties last resided together within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Kaithal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petition has to be filed at the place where the wife resides. The petitioner would be entitled for travelling allowances etc. for going to attend the case at Kaithal on an application being moved by her under Section 24 of the Act. In case such application is filed, the learned District Judge before whom the petition under Section 13 of the Act is pending shall consider the request for payment of travelling expenses of the petitioner and her companion for each and every occasion when her presence is required in the Court at Kaithal. It may also be noticed that the Supreme Court in Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 has observed that at one stage the Supreme Court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by women taking advantage of the leniency shown by the Supreme Court. On an average at least 10 to 15 transfer petitions are on board of each Court on each admission day. It was further observed that leniency of the Supreme Court was being misused by the women and each case is to be considered on its own merit. In the present case, only ground to transfer the case is that the petitioner's father is very old and it is very difficult for her to leave him. Besides, she apprehends that she would be manhandled by the respondent- husband and his family members. These are mere averments of the petitioner-wife and it is not shown to be substantiated. T.A. No. 174 of 2008 [4] Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1905 of 2004 Date of decision: May 21, 2008 Sukhdev Kaur .... Appellant versus Choti Kaur .... Respondent Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Arvind Thakur, Advocate for the respondent. *** S.S. SARON, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Smt. Choti Kaur wife of Ram Nath from interfering in possession of land comprised in Rectangle No.145 Khasra No.21 measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas and Khasra No.22 measuring 7 kanals 14 marlas. The claim of the plaintiff was based on the sale deed dated 16.12.1988 executed by Ram Nath-predessor- in-interest of Smt. Choti Kaur (defendant). The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.2002 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. In appeal the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.2.2004 reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved against the said RSA No. 1905 of 2004 [2] judgment and decree, plaintiff-appellant has filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has contended that the suit land was sold by Ram Nath-predecessor-in- interest of the defendant Smt.Choti Kaur vide sale deed dated 16.12.1988 and since then the plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the same. Learned counsel cites Renu Devi v. Mahendra Singh and others, 2003(1) PLJ 294 (SC) . In response learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondent has contended that the suit land is Shamlat deh land and is the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the same could not be sold by Ram Nath. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The foundation of the claim of the plaintiff-appellant is the sale deed dated 16.12.1988 executed by Ram Nath-predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Smt. Choti Kaur. A perusal of the said sale deed shows that the land comprised in Khasra No.385 and other land had been sold by Ram Nath. It is recited in the said sale deed that apart from the land which has been sold, the vendor is also selling the suit land which is the ownership of the Panchayat deh and he has given possession as per his share. A reading of the said recital in the sale deed dated 16.12.1988 shows that the vendor Ram Nath had accepted the position that the suit land is the owernship of the Panchayat deh and that he is giving handing-over possession. It is beyond doubt that the RSA No. 1905 of 2004 [3] land which is ownership of the Panchayat deh could not have been sold by the vendor. The learned Lower Appellate Court has, after considering the sale deed dated 16.12.1988 and the evidence of PW1 namely Sh. Nank Singh, Advocate-scribe of the sale deed, observed that it is evident that at the time of execution of the said sale deed, Ram Nath was not the owner of the suit land and that Gram Panchayat was the owner. It is also observed that there was no revenue record placed on the file by the plaintiff-appellant to show that at the time of execution of sale deed dated 16.12.1988, Ram Nath was in actual physical possession of the suit land. The judgment in Renu Devi v. Mahendra Singh (supra), was a case where the donors had not acquired title to the property yet they gifted the property. It was observed that a pre-existing interest in the property and right to participation was upheld by preliminary decree. Therefore, the said case relates to the donors having not acquired property though they had a pre-existing right. In the present case, the land of the Gram Panchayat is being sold of which the vendor-Ram Nath was not the owner. Therefore, the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the present case. No question of law is shown to be involved in the present case. Consequently, there is no merit in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 21, 2008 amit The petitioner would be entitled to for travelling allowances etc. for going to attend the case at Kaithal on an application being moved by her under Section 24 of the Act. In case such application is filed, the learned District Judge before whom the petition under Section 13 of the Act is pending shall consider the request for payment of travelling expenses of the petitioner and her companion for each and every occasion when her presence is required at the Court at Kaithal. It may be noticed that