Himachal Pradesh Court March 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.
Ram Chand and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-28-1952
Reported in: AIR1952HP57
Chowdhry, J.C.(1) This is an appeal by Ram Chand, Phagnu, Tulu, Bhadaru & Nandu against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge of Mandi dated 31-12-1951. Ram Chand has been convicted under Section 325, I. P. C., and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. Each of the remaining four appellants has been convicted under Section 323, I. P. C., and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment.(2) The committal of the appellants was also made for the aforesaid offences, but it became necessary for the Magistrate to commit them for trial to the Court of Session since one of the accomplices, Sahru, had been tendered pardon under Section 337, Cr. P. C., at an earlier stage when the inquiry related to offences triable exclusively by a Court of Session, i.e. for offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397, I. P. C.(3) A number of shepherds, known as Gaddis, were returning with a large flock of sheep, about 700 in number, to Kulu Valley from Palampur side on 22-5-1951. L...
Sihnu Vs. Lachman Dass and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1952
Reported in: AIR1952HP41
ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. This is an application in revision by Sinhu, defendant against whom the Senior Subordinate Judge of Mandi passed a permanent injunction restraining him from working his water-mill because it interfered with the plaintiff's right of running their own mill, known as the Rafi Gharat, and that decree wasaffirmed on appeal by the District Judge. The decree in question was passed on foot of a Santha, or grant of lessee rights, made in favour of the plaintiffs by the then ruler of Mandi on 9 Har Sambat 72 Kham. The Santha provided that no other water-mill could be run by anyone else within a radius of four kos from the plaintiffs' mill. The water-mill in suit was set up by the defendant-petitioner at a distance of about three quarters of a mile from the plaintiff's mill.2. The first point urged by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner was that the Santha in question had not been proved as required by Section 67, Evidence Act, and that the presumption laid down...
Lohku and anr. Vs. Bhola Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1952
Reported in: AIR1952HP62
Chowdhry, J.C. 1. This is an application in revision by Lohku defendant for self and as guardian-adlitem of Roshan, defendant. There was a third defendant, Sundar, who is not a party to this revision.2. Bhola Ram respondent obtained a decree for possession of some land on 15-5-1950 against the aforesaid three defendants from the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sarkaghat. An appeal, purporting to be on behalf of all the three defendants, was filed in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Mandi on 24-6-1950. There was a vakalatnama in favour of a counsel signed by Lohku defendant only, but the memorandum of appeal was signed neither by any of the appellants nor by the counsel. The Senior Subordinate Judge therefore passed an order on 28-6-1950 rejecting the appeal. The present revision has been filed against that order of rejection of appeal.3. There is no doubt that the signing of the memorandum of appeal by the appellant or his pleader is mandatory under Order 41, Rule 1, C. P...
Harish Chandra Vs. Lieut. Governor of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1952HP43
ORDERChowdhry, J.C. 1. This is an application by one Harish Chandra under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other directions as may be deemed fit to the respondent. The Chief Commissioner of Himachal Pradesh was the respondent' originally, but after 1-3-1952, on which date Himachal Pradesh became a Lieutenant Governor's State, the description of the respondent was on the application of the petitioner amended into that of the Lieutenant Governor, Himachal Pradesh.2. The petitioner was appointed Superintendent in the transport department by the then Sirmur State on six months probation by an order dated 24-5-1947. On the expiry of the period of his probation there was neither an order of confirmation nor of extension of the petitioner's period of probation and his services were not terminated, the scale of his salary was raised and on the expiry of one year he was allowed an increment. After the merger of Sirmur State with Himachal Prade...
Hoshiar Singh and anr. Vs. Mt. Kowla and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-07-1952
Reported in: AIR1952HP42
ORDERChowdhry, J.C.1. This is a reference under the proviso to Section 113, C. P. Code, by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge of Nahan, and it has been made in the following circumstances.2. A Hindu widow made a sale of property inherited by her from her husband. The reversioners thereupon brought a suit for a declaration that the alienation is not binding on the reversion. The widow pleaded, 'inter alia', that the Hindu law or custom which imposed restrictions on her right of alienation was inconsistent with the fundamental right of all citizens to dispose of property under Article 19 (f) and therefore void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge has referred the case for the opinion of this Court on the point as there exists no precedent of this Court or of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, his own opinion being in favour of the widow's contention.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and am clearly of the opinion, that the plea taken by the widow...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›