Himachal Pradesh Court November 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.
Mela Ram and ors. Vs. Amar Nath and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-30-1955
Reported in: AIR1957HP39
Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Chamba, dismissing their suit for partition and separate possession of one-half share of immovable property, situate at Surkhigali and Banikhet, district Chamba.2. The following pedigree table will show the relationship of the parties:-- RAM DAYAL | ----------------------------------------- | | | Hira Lal Nihal Chand Maya Ram | | (Issueless) --------------------- ----------------------------------------- | | | | | | | |Kanhya Lal Aminchand Sant Mela Kirshan Hans Milkhi mehar | | Ram Ram Das Raj Ram chand------------ ----------- || | | | | Dwarka NathAmarnath Jagannath prem Ram Pran Nath Nath NathAs would be obvious from the pedigree table, parties are descendants of a common ancestor, named Bam Dayal. Plaintiffs' case was that they and the defendants formed a joint Hindu family and the property in suit, though entered in the revenue papers in the name of Hira Lal and his...
Gajjan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP9
ORDER'--For reasons stated above,I dismiss both the appeals with this slight modification that respondent 3, Raja Sahib of Solan,will bear his own costs here and in the Courtbelow. One set of costs would be payable by theplaintiff-appellant in both the Courts and thesame would be divided between respondents 1and 2. This judgment will be read in both theappeals. ...
Brijlal and ors. Vs. Tikhu and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-12-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP37
Ramabhadran, J.C.1. This was, originally, filed as a First Appeal from an order of remand under Order 43, Rule 1(u), Civil P.C. For reasons stated in this Court's order dated 11-1-1955, however, I held, that the order of remand was not under Order 41, Rule 23, but under Section 151, Civil P. C., and consequently, no appeal lay. At the request of the appellants' counsel, the memorandum of appeal was treated as a revision petition and admitted on the point that the order of remand did not conform to law. 2. To-day. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This matter had come up beforethis Court on two earlier occasions. When it was last heard by this Court on 3-4-1954, I had directed the learned District Judge to rehear the appeal after shaking off the impression that there had been any finding regarding custom by, my learned predecessor in his order dated 2-1-1952. Towards the end of my order, I had observed:-- 'The hands of the District Judge are not tied at all and in rehearing ...
Bhandari Vs. Shiamu and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-08-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP16
Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. This is a revision petition against an order passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Bilaspur, permitting the withdrawal of a suit with permission to bring a fresh suit. The suit, as originally filed, was for a declarationthat an alienation made by one Gokal would not affect the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs after his death. During the pendency of the suit, Gokal died and thereupon it became incumbent upon the plaintiffs to ask for possession in addition to declaration. The Court below, while conceding that the purpose could be served by allowing the amendment of the plaint, felt that withdrawal of the suit, with permission to bring a fresh suit, would be more 'advisable'. On these premises, it permitted the withdrawal of the suit, with liberty to bring a fresh suit, on payment of Rs. 10/- as costs to the opposite side. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of the Court below was against law inasmuch as there was no formal defect where...
Raghunandan Lal Gupta and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1955
Reported in: AIR1956HP25
ORDERRamabhadran, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution, I am requested to certify that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. The petitioners had applied to this Court under Article 226 for issue of a writ against the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Nahan, directing respondent No. 1 to withdraw an order under Section 238 of the Punjab Municipal Act, as applied to Himachal Pradesh, superseding the Nahan Municipal Committee and appointing respondent No. 2 as Administrator thereof. For reasons stated in this Court's order dated 2-9-1955, since reported in--'R.L. Gupta v. State of Himachal Pradesh', 1955 Him-P 7 (A), that petition was rejected. In doing so, I had remarked that while a member could not be removed from the Committee without notice and the communication of the reasons for his proposed removal as well as the grant of an opportunity to tender his explanatioa (vide Section 16, of the Punjab Munic...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›