Himachal Pradesh Court October 1955 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.
Prem Chand and anr. Vs. Lilawati Shanti and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP16b
Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. This is an appeal by two defendants, which arises out of a suit for declaration and possession. The suit was filed by Shrimati Lilawati, daughter of Lazar, a predeceased son; of Samuel. Prem Chand (defendant No. 1) and, Timtawas (defendant No. 2) are the sons of Samuel, while Srimati Shanti (defendant No. 3) is a daughter of Samuel. Garis Chand (defendant No. 4) is the son of Srimati Tabina, another daughter of Samuel, while Srimati Premi (defendant No. 5) is similarly the daughter of Srimati Ester, yet another daughter of Samuel. Samuel died on 1-6-1948, leaving lands and. other properties in village Melan, sub-tehsil Kumarsain, district Mahasu. His property has been mutated in the names of Prem Chand and Timtawas, defendants 1 and 2, and they have taken possession thereof. The plaintiff's case was that parties, being Indian Christians, are governed, in matter of succession, by the provisions of Succession Act, 1925. Accordingly, she claimed one sixth share of the...
Sanam Ram and anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP20,1956CriLJ534
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C. 1. The petitioners, along with three others, were prosecuted in the Court of the Magistrate first class, Rohru, of offences under Sections 302 and 323, read with Section 147, I. P. C. The learned Magistrate discharged two of the accused persons, named Dilsukh and Nagarchi (with whom we are not concerned). He, however, framed a charge under Section 323 I. P. C., against the two petitioners, namely, Sariam Ram and Sadh Ram, as well as one Brahma Nand. He eventually convicted, them under that section and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each. 2. Sanam Ram, Sadh Ram and Brahma Nand went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge of Mahasu. They were, however, unsuccessful. 3. Sanam Ram and Sadh Ram have now come up to this Court in revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners (Mr. K.C. Pandit)' argued, 'inter alia', that the conviction of the petitioners could not be maintained, because the offence, for which they had been convicted, had been compounded...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›