Himachal Pradesh Court May 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.
Dhuru Vs. Chandu Ram and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-14-1956
Reported in: AIR1957HP29
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. This revision petition, by a defendant, arises out of an appellate decision of Sri Lachhman Dass, Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi, in a suit for rendition of accounts. On 14-3-1956, the revision petition was admitted on the following two points (a) Whether the Senior Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to decide the appeal on 19-9-1955, in view of this Court's notification dated 15-9-1955 withdrawing appellate powers from Senior Subordinate Judges in Himachal Pradesh? (b) Whether apart from the above notification, the Senior Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, i. e. since the appeal arose out of an unclassed suit, exceeding Rs. 100/- in value?2. Arguments of the learned counsel for theparties were heard on the 3rd instant at Mandi.I now proceed to deliver judgment.3. (a) Mr. Mehra for the petitioner argued that Sri Lachhman Dass had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal, because his appellate powers were withdrawn on 15-9-1955, vide this Court'...
Budhu Vs. Nahru and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-12-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP50
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C.1. These two revision petitions can be disposed of conveniently by means of one judgment, as they involve common points for determination. In the case of Civil Revision No. 53 of 1954, a further point for determination arises, as to whether the suit giving rise to it was barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, C. P. C. I shall refer to that point also in due course.2. (A) The first point to be considered in both the revision petitions is the value of an entry in the Khewat Abadi of Nagar Mandi. The learned District Judge has remarked that there was nothing on the record to show under what law the Khewat Abadi was prepared and what evidentiary value should be attached to the entries therein. He has further remarked that under Section 35, Evidence Act, an entry in any public or other official book, register or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person, in performa...
Thakar Das Vs. Chetu, Etc.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: May-05-1956
Reported in: AIR1956HP64,1956CriLJ1319
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C. 1. The petitioner Thakar Das, filed a complaint under Sections 427 and 447, I. P. C. against the respondents in the Court of M. II. C. Joginder-Nagar. The complaint was to . the effect that the accused persons had grazed their cattle on the complainant's 'Ruta' measuring about 75 bighas in village Chharang, and thereby caused him wrongful loss to the tune of Rs. 100/-The accused persons contended that the Ruta neither belonged to nor was in the possession of the complainant. The trial Magistrate found in favour of the complainant's version and accordingly convicted the accused under Section 427, I. P. C. and sentenced them to fines. On appeal by the accused, however, the District Magistrate, Mandi, differed from the findings of the Trial Court and came to the conclusion that the complainant was never in possession of the Ruta in question. Consequently, he set aside the conviction of the accused persons and acquitted them. Hence this petition under Section 417 (3)...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›