Himachal Pradesh Court January 1956 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.
Sudarshan Vs. Chuha Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP28
Ramabhadran, J.C.1. These are two cross-appeals, which arise out of a suit on the basis of a contract for the sale of land, measuring 230 bighas 12 biswas and 10 biswansis, situate in village Badhwan Kasurla, ilaqa Bahl, Tehsil Sadar, district Mandi. On 21-5-1949, (corresponding to 8th Jeth, 2006) Sudarshan, defendant, executed an agreement, Ex. P. A, whereby he undertook to sell the land mentioned above to the plaintiff, Mian Chuha Singh, and one Hem Prabh in equal shares for a total consideration of Rs. 22,000/-.In the body of the agreement, Sudarshan admitted receipt of half the sale consideration, namely, Rs. 11,000/-. The balance was to be paid, when the sale-deed was registered. In the event of any default on the part of the defendant, he was to make good to the plaintiff, not only the sum of Rs. 11,000/- already received, but a further sum of Rs. 11,000/- by way of damages.The plaintiff's case was that the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract and mortgaged the la...
Sant Vs. Ram Saran and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-07-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP35
Ramabhadran, J.C.1. These are three connected second appeals by a defendant and they arise out of three suits for the recovery of Rs. 1591/10, Rs. 1064/-, and Rs. 1952/- respectively on the basis of three bonds. In each of the suits, there were 3 defendants, Sant, Devi Singh and Puran Chand. The suits were consolidated by order of the trial Court and evidence was recorded in suit No. 80. Sant, defendant, while admitting receipt of the above sums pleaded that he was only an agent of the other two defendants and he made over the sums to the latter and transmitted their acknowledgments to the plaintiffs.2. Puran Ohand disclaimed all liability. He alleged that as mukhtiar of Devi Singh, he wrote the letters in question to Sant Ram.3. Devi Singh categorically denied having authorized Puran Chand or Sant to borrow the monies in question from the, plaintiffs.4. The trial Court (Sub-Judge Mandi) decreed the suits against Devi Singh, defendant, alone, holding that the sums in question had been ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›