Himachal Pradesh Court October 1952 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.
Ranvijai Singh Vs. Divisional Forest Officer and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1952
Reported in: AIR1953HP33
ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Maharaj Ranvijai Singh of Nahan for the issue to the respondents, the Divisional Forest Officer Nahan, the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Conservator of Forests at Nahan, of a writ of mandamus or prohibition, or such directions or orders as may be necessary, preventing them from proceeding with the recovery of Rs. 2,907/12/- as value of trees alleged to have been cut by the petitioner's contractors from Government Forest.2. The private forest of the petitioner, Known as the Bikram Bagh, and the reserved forest belonging to the Government, known as the Pairiwala, adjoin each other. The petitioner sold some trees in the year 2003 B., corresponding roughly to 1946 A. D., to certain contractors, who felled and removed them. The Forester made a report to the Divisional Forest Officer on 4-1-2004 B. that the contractors had cut and converted into charcoal 150 'kokath' and 44 'khair' trees from the said G...
Attra Vs. Atma Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1952
Reported in: AIR1953HP29
ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. This is an application in revision by the defendant Attra against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Mahasu and Sirmur, dated 1-3-1952, affirming the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Nahan, dated 10-12-1951, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Atma Ram for possession of a certain cultivatory holding was decreed.2. The defendant-petitioner was at one time occupancy tenant of the land in suit. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that Attra had relinquished his occupancy rights in the land in 1993 B., that thereafter the proprietor Jagat Bahadur had let out the land to the plaintiff, and that on 11-7-1949 Attra had wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff. The present suit was filed on 16-8-1950.3. It was held by the trial Court that Attra had in fact relinquished his occupancy rights as alleged by the plaintiff, and that the latter had been let into possession of the land by the proprietor. That Court, therefore, ...
Bhajnu Vs. Raiya
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-1952
Reported in: AIR1953HP59
Chowdhry, J.C.(1) This is an application to this Court by Bhajnu for setting aside the Judgment and decree of the Financial Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh, dated 2-2-1952, in exercise of this Court's powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution.(2) The petitioner as landlord applied to the Revenue Officer under Section 43, Punjab Tenancy Act, for ejectment of the respondent Raiya from land of which he stood recorded as a te-nant-at-will. On the requisite notice of ejectment being served upon him, Raiya instituted a suit to contest his liability to ejectment on the ground that he was an occupancy tenant of the land. That suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st grade on 15-5-1951 on the ground that although Raiya had been in cultivatory possession of the land for 35 years or more, he had not acquired occupancy rights therein. Raiya was however awarded Rs. 1160/- as compensation under Section 70 of the Act.(3) Raiya then filed an appeal to the Collector unde...
Hira Singh Bam Vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1953HP57
Chowdhry, J.C.(1) The petitioner purchased a house in Nahan, known as the 'Rose View', from the ex-Government of Sirmur for Rs. 8,000/- on 28-1-2005 B., corresponding to 9-4-1948, and he has ever since been in possession of the same.(2) One of the terms of the sale-deed was that in case of need the Ruler will have the right to repurchase the house for Rs. 8,000/-without any objection by the vendee. On 2-7-1952 the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmur at Nahan served the petitioner with a notice. Reference was made to the terms of the petitioner's sale-deed, and he was informed that the house was urgently required by the military authorities. The Deputy Commissioner then went on to say that he had been directed to ask the petitioner to vacate the house before 31-7-1952 and hand over possession of the same to Lt.-Colonel Onkar Chand, Commanding Officer Military Station, Nahan. It was also stated in the communication that after handing over possession the petitioner might make a demand for refund ...
Dasondhi Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-23-1952
Reported in: AIR1953HP36
ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. This is an application in revision by one Dasondhi against his conviction by a first class Magistrate of Nahan for an offence punishable under Section 9 (b), Opium Act, 1878, and the sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 200/- fine, or further two months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine, imposed upon him. His appeal has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.2. One Tika Ram was also tried along with the present petitioner, and he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 9 (a) of the said Act for having been found in possession of contraband opium. It has been found that he was given a lift by the petitioner in a jeep, of which the petitioner was a driver, on the evening of 22-9-1951 from a place in the outskirts of Nahan to a spot about two furlongs on the Nahan side of the octroi and police barrier at Kala Amb. It has also come in evidence that while travelling in the jeep driven by the petitioner Tika Ram had with ...
Duni Chand Vs. Munshi Amar Nath and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-21-1952
Reported in: AIR1953HP68
Chowdhry, J.C.1. This is a plaintiff's application in revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, against the judgment and decree of the learned Small Cause Court Judge Nahan dated 21-2-1952, dismissing his suit for. recovery of Rs. 32/11/-. This amount consisted of Rs. 24/1/-, alleged to be due as price of ghee which the defendant is said to have purchased from the plaintiff on 29 Mangsar 2005, and Rs. 8/10/- as interest thereon at 12 per cent, per annum. No written statement was filed but the defendant's counsel stated that the plaintiff's claim was not admitted. The trial Court thereupon put the plaintiff to the proof of his case. The plaintiff came into the witness-box and he produced extracts from his books of account, but the suit was dismissed 'in the absence of any proof.'2. There is a preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent, namely, that Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, is not applicable and therefo...
Bhagwandas Vs. Debi Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953HP25
Chowdhry, J.C.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff Bhagwandas against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Mahasu, dated 15-4-1952, dismissing his appeal and affirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge whereby his suit for a declaration that he was the sole proprietor of the lands in dispute was dismissed.2. The defendant-respondent Debi Ram is plaintiff-appellant's uncle. The land in suit consists of 59 bighas 12 biswas 9 biswansis off cultivatory and 1 bigha 12 biswas and 12 biswansis of pasture land in village Bair in ilaqa Kunhwal, 5 bighas 10 biswas and 6 biswansis of cultivatory land in village Galyanda Behna and 8 bighas 1 biswa and 5 biswansis of cultivatory land in village Ghori Dhar, the two latter villages being in ilaqa Ghasnu. They stand recorded in the names of the parties in equal shares. The defendant applied to the appropriate revenue authority for partition of the land according to the recorded shares. The plaintiff opposed th...
Kanshi Ram and ors. Vs. Lajju Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-13-1952
Reported in: AIR1953HP70
Chowdhry, J.C.1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs Kanshi Ram and others against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Mandi, dated 29-4-1952, reversing the decree of the Subordinate Judge (whereby it was declared that the plaintiffs were the owners of a cultivatory holding) and dismissing their suit.2. The land in suit, measuring 21 bighas 17 biswas and 4 biswansis of cultivatory and 3 bighas 17 biswas and 10 biswansis of pasture land, situate in village Mundak Gahri Tehsil Sarkaghat, originally belonged to one Gaddi, and he sold it in 1971 B. to Devi Ram, late father of the defendant-respondent Lajju Ram, for a sum of Rs. 425/-. The plaintiffs are heirs of three brothers Naurangu, Lohku and Damru, and one of the allegations made by them in the present suit was that the transaction of sale was a benami one, the real purchasers having been the said three brothers. This allegation was traversed by the defendant in the trial Court, but the finding of that Court...
Barikam and anr. Vs. Charnu and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-06-1952
Reported in: AIR1953HP63
ORDERChowdhry, J.C.(1) This is a defendants' application in revision, and it arises in the following circumstances.(2) Niku, brother of the plaintiffs-respondents Lachmu and Charnu, died on 15-9-1993 B. He left property in two villages, Bodhal and Jaidevi, and his one-third share in each of the two villages was mutated in favour of the defendants-petitioners, the mutation in respect of the Jaidevi property having taken place on 31-3-1994 B. and that in respect of property in Bodhal on 11-11-1994 B. It appears that the entire property in Bodhal was in possession of the plaintiffs and the entire property in Jaidevi, in that of Niku. After the mutations the defendants applied to the revenue authorities for partition of their one-third share in Bodhal. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed two Suits on one and the same date, i.e., on 19-11-1948 A.D., one relating to the property in village Jaidevi and the other to that in village Bodhal. As the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in Bod...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›