Himachal Pradesh Court April 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.
Ambaka and anr. Vs. Ajmat and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-30-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP53
Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. Ajmat (respondent 1) filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Mandi against Ambka, Ruldu and others seeking a declaration that an order of ejectment passed by the Assistant Collector, against him under Section 3, Himachal Pradesh Tenants (Rights and Restoration) Act, 1952, was not binding upon him, and further praying that the defendants be restrained permanently from interfering with his possession. 2. Ajmat's main contention was that the order in question was passed to his detriment without notice to him. The learned Senior Sub-Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was not competent and accordingly non-suited Ajmat. Thereupon, Ajmat went up in appeal to the learned District Judge, who differing from the opinion of the trial Court, held that the suit did lie to the Civil Court. Consequently, the case was remanded under Order 41, Rule 23, C. P. C. Against this order of remand, Ambka and Ruldu have come up in appeal to this Court. 3. Arguments of the ...
Ashok Pal Singh and ors. Vs. Moti Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-26-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP47
Ramabhadran, J.C.1. This revision petition by two plaintiffs was admitted by this Court on 23-11-1954, on the following point :'Whether in the erstwhile Mandi State easement rights could be acquired against the State or not.'2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Both the Courts below have answered the question in negative. The learned trial Judge has pointed out that under the Mandi Limitation Regulation, (Regulation V of 1975 Sm.), there was no period of limitation as against the State, vide Section 3 of that Regulation.Before the learned District Judge, it was urged by the respondent's learned counsel that under the Mandi State Laws, no rights of easement could be claimed or acquired against the Darbar property. Mr. Thakar Parshad, who appeared for the appellant in that Court, did not challenge the correctness of that proposition, vide the judgment of the District Judge.3. In this Court, Mr. D. N. Vaidya, for the petitioners argued that Section 3 of Regulation V of 1975, d...
ishwar Das Kaushesh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-19-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP55
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C. 1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It arises under the following circumstances:2. The petitioner is the owner of land, measuring 5341 square yards situated on the Hospital Round at Nahan and of a building erected thereupon. On 19-4-1955, through notification No. R. 60-65/55, the Revenue Department of the Himachal Pradesh Government notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act that the above land was likely to be needed for a public purpose, i.e. for the Teachers' Training School, Nahan. Anyone interested in objecting to the acquisition of the above land was required to file his objections in writing to Collector of Sirmur district within 30 days.On 4-5-1955 another notification, No. R-60-65/ 55, was issued by the Revenue Department of theHimachal Pradesh Government, purporting to be under section 6, read with Section 17(1) and 17(4), of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein it was stated that the land was required to be take...
Durga Dutt Vs. Chandanu
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-17-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP58
Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. This is an appeal by an unsuccessful caveator against the order of the Senior Sub Judge, Nahan (exercising powers of a District Judge under the Indian Succession Act) granting letters of Administration, with a copy of the will annexed, in favour of the respondent Chandanu. 2. Chandanu relied upon a registered will executed in his favour by Mst. Shankari on the 25th Baisakh 2005B. The caveator-appellant did not dispute the execution of the aforesaid will in favour of Chandanu. His case, on the other hand, was that the will in favour of Chandanu stood revoked by a subsequent will executed by Mst. Shankari in favour of appellant and his brother Zalmu on 2-3-51. Therefore, the point for determination, before the court below, was whether the will relied upon by Chandanu had or had not been revoked by the alleged subsequent will in favour of Durga Dutt and Zalmu. The learned Senior Sub Judge came to the conclusion that the will relied upon by the appellant had not been p...
Duni Chand Vs. Hira Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP60
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C. 1. In this revision petition, the point for determination is : Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the previous execution petition, filed by Bansi Lal on behalf of his minor sons, Randip Singh and Jaswant Singh, was an application, made in accordance with law, within the meaning of Article 182, Limitation Act?Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that since the Court Nazir had been appointed guardian ad litem of the aforesaid minors during the pendency of the suit, that appointment continued during execution proceedings and, consequently, none but the Nazir could apply for execution. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied not only on the provisions of Order 32, Rule 3 (5), Civil P. C., but also on the following rulings :(a) 'Muthia Chettiar v. Govinda Dass', AIR 1921 Mad 599 (A), where a learned Judge of that High Court remarked that: ''An application for execution is a proceeding in a suit. Order 22, R. 10 applies to execution pro...
State Vs. Bishan Das Suri
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP49,1956CriLJ1317
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. The respondent, who is a pleader, second grade, practising at Theog, within the jurisdiction of this Court, was convicted by the Magistrate second class, Theog (Sri Chattar Singh), of an offence under Section 451, I. P. C., on 1-7-1955 and released after admonition under Section 562U-A), Criminal P. C.On 22-7-1955, the respondent sent a post-card to the Magistrate by name, portions of which are reproduced below: 'Aap ne tithi 1-7-1955 ko ba muqadma Khabdu banam Bishan Das zer dafa 452/451 men jo faisla men fahmash mulzam jo ek ziizat aur umar rasida ko bila kisi ikhtiar ke ki hai ji-se mulzam ke dil ko bahul thesh pahunchi hai aur beizati bhi hui hai isliye main aap ko notice dwara suchit karta hun ki aap notice prapt hone per pata dewan ki kyun na public men aap ki is kinawar jahalat pasandana khayal ka ishar pamphlet dwara karaya jawe ta ke malaum ho jawe ki Himachal men aise afsaran is azad haqumat men abhi tak maujood hain jin ke karan azad haqumat badnam h...
Jai Chand Vs. Collector and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP71
Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. The petitioner was formerly a Patwari in Teiisil Rohru, district Mahasu. He was tried, along with others, of offences under Sections 363 and 368, I. P. C., & convicted thereof by the Magistrate first class, Rohru. On appeal, however, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of Mahasu. The petitioner had been suspended by the Collector, Mahasu, during the pendency of the criminal case.After his acquittal by the Sessions Court, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 14-7-1955 by the Collector, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from Government service on account of his misconduct as a public servant. A reply was submitted by the petitioner on 25-7-1955. On 8-12-1955, the Collector passed an order, dismissing the petitioner from Government service. He has now filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein I am requested to issue a writ to the Collector of Mahasu and the State of Himac...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›