Himachal Pradesh Court March 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.
Daya Ram and ors. Vs. Jagir Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP61
Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. This second appeal by defendants arises out of a suit for the possession of 8 bighas and 8 biswas of land situated in village Palthi, Pargana Teun. The plaintiffs' case was that the land in suit had reverted to them alter the death of Mt. Santi and Mt. Nazku, w/o Prabhu, the last male occupancy tenant. Mutation was effected in favour of the plaintiffs on 21-5-f950. The defendants, however, took forcible possession of the land on 15-6-1950. Consequently, the plaintiffs contended that the defendants, as trespassers, were liable to be evicted. 2. The suit was resisted by the defendants on various grounds. Inter alia, it was contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of Daya Ram, Bali Ham and certain other heirs of Mt. Nazku. In the second place, it was alleged that one Khayalu, the common ancestor of the defendants and Prabhu (the last male occupancy tenant) had once been in possession of the suit land. On that score, the defendants claimed occupancy rights for t...
Mt. Lachmi and ors. Vs. Anant Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-27-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP68
Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. This second appeal by defendants arises out of a suit brought by Anant Ram and his brother, Jagdish, for a declaration that the sale of the land in suit by Mathura, deceased husband of Mt. Janki, on 23rd Jeth 1990 in favour of Ram Singh and others would not affect their rights after her (Mt. Janki's) death. The plaintiffs' case was, firstly, that the property in suit was ancestral. Secondly, according to the custom, which bound the parties, such property could not be alienated without consideration and legal necessity and, thirdly, the plaintiffs were minors, when the alienation took place. As such, they filed the suit on attaining majority. Consequently, they sought a declaration, referred to above. 2. The suit was resisted on the grounds, firstly, that the defendants were not aware that the property to suit was ancestral. Secondly, the parties were governed, in matters of alienation, by their personal law and not by custom. Thirdly, that the alienation in questio...
Kashi Ram Vs. Jai Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1957HP27
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. This is is a petition for grant of certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court dated 10-8-1955 in Regular First Appeal No. 12 of 1950. It arises under the following circumstances:2. The petitioner filed a suit against Jai Ram and four others for the recovery of Rs. 8,500/- (Rs. 5,000/- principal and Rs. 3,500/- interest) on the allegation that Jai Ram, as manager of the joint Hindu family (consisting of the defendants), took a loan for Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff and his father on 19-3-1993 B. The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that the sum of Rs. 5,000/-, mentioned above, was advanced by Bijai Ram, father of the plaintiff, to a firm styled 'Bhandari Bijai Ram Kashi Ram and Company'', consisting of Kashi Ram, his father, Bijai Ram, Daya Ram, Jai Ram and Ganga Ram. The said amount, it was contended, was duly entered in the Bahis of the firm. Under those circumstances, the defendants pleaded that the suit was in...
Kashi Ram Vs. Firm Jai Ram Ganga Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP65
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. These are two connected petitions for grant of certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of this Court dated 10-8-1955 in Regular First Appeals Nos. 34 and 37 of 1951--which were disposed of by a common judgment. The petitions arise under the following circumstances : Jai Ram and Ganga Ram filed a suit against Bijai Ram Kashi Ram for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,534/10/- (Rs. 28,054/13/3 capital and the balance by way of interest) with the allegation that they (the plaintiffs) had been carrying on business at Simla styled as Firm Jai Ram Ganga Rani, while the defendants carried on business in the name of Firm Bijai Ram and Company.On 31-3-1936, the latter took over the assets and liabilities of the former firm for a sum of Rs. 26,054/13/3. The plaintiffs' case was that the sum of Rs. 26,054/13/3 aforesaid plus interest thereupon was due to them from the defendants less a sum of Rs. 2,420/8/3 for which they had been afforded credit by t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›