Himachal Pradesh Court August 1949 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Daulatia and anr. Vs. Jaiya
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-24-1949
Reported in: AIR1950HP36
ORDERBannerji, J. 1. This revision, which is directed against a judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Kasumpti, dated 29th April 1949, relates to the ownership of 14 biswas of land out of Khasra No. 4, Khata no. 7 of village Bagra (Theog), which is claimed, on the one hand, by the petitioners (Daulatia and Sita Ram) and on the other, by the opposite party, Jaiya, by whom the suit was commenced on 7th August 1947. 2. The dispute, which relates to ownership and possession of land, was properly cognizable by the Subordinate Judge of Theog. He dismissed the suit on 15th October 1948. On 20th November 1948, an appeal was taken to Shri Jagannath Bhagat, District Judge, Mahasu, under Section 31 (a), Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948, which had come into force on 15th August 1948. By the said section, it was enacted that; 'Appeals from decrees of Courts exercising original jurisdiction shall lie, (a) from a decree of a Subordinate Judge in a suit of value not exceeding five ...
Haria Vs. Bhindru and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-01-1949
Reported in: AIR1950HP8
Bannerji, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Chief Judicial Officer, Simla Hill States at Kasumpti, dated 31st July 1948, reversing a judgment and decree of the District Judge, Theog State, dated 31st July 1947, and thereby dismissing the suit. 2. This is a dispute between three proprietors holding estates respectively in villages, Shariana and Batog in Theog State and Moond in Sirmur State, now comprised in Himachal Pradesh. Each of the landed proprietors of Shariana and Moond maintained that he was the absolute owner to the exclusion of the rest. But the proprietors of Batog estate, save a solitary exception, maintained that all these three estates were joint property. Bali Ram of village Batog defendant 11 claimed that the Batog estate had fallen to the share of defendants 4 to 11 and have been mutually partitioned amongst them without any reference to the plaintiff or to defendants 1 to 3. 3. The case of the plaintiff wag, in substance, that he was the owner of the Sha...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›