Himachal Pradesh Court May 1951 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.
Beli Ram and anr. Vs. Sada Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-26-1951
Reported in: AIR1952HP23
ORDERChowdhury, J.C.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision, and it arises in the following circumstances.2. One Mt. Waziru conferred occupancy rights in 46 bighas odd land on her son-in-law Rajmal for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/-. One Finu, claiming to be a reversioner, filed a suit impugning the transaction. That suit was decided in 1985 and it was held that the reversioner would be entitled to get possession on the property on payment of Rs. 416/-. That was the extent to which the aforesaid consideration of Rs. 1,000/- was held to have been justified by legal necessity. It appears that this sum of Rs. 416/- represented the amount which Rajmal had to pay to one Malagar in order to redeem a mortgage in his favour by Mt. Waziru. On the death of Mt. Waziru, but after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit, the father and uncles of the present plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession of the aforesaid 46 odd bighas of land as reversioners ag...
Kewal Ram Vs. Bhagwan Dass and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-17-1951
Reported in: AIR1951HP61
ORDERChowdhry, J. 1. This is adeft.'s application in revision against the judgment & decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Jubbal dated 26-10-1950, dismissing hia appeal & affirming the judgment & decree of the Subordinate Judge of Jubbal, dated 27-6-1950, whereby the pltfs. resps. were granted a decree for possession of three biswas & fourteen biswansis of land & for a mandatory injunction to the deft.-applicant to demolish a wall. The revision has been filed under para. 35 (1) (a), Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948. 2. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the plfs.-resps. that the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order are not applicable, but those of the Code of Civil Procedure, & that under Section 115 of the Code the present revision is not maintainable. It is necessary to dispose of this preliminary objection since provisions relating to appeals & revisions in the said Order are different from those in the Code. 3. Before proceeding further, it would ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›