Himachal Pradesh Court September 1956 Judgments

The State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Buti Nath

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1957HP37,1957CriLJ631

Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. The respondent, Buti Nath, as well as one Dasondhi, alias Lilu, were prosecuted by the Nahan Police of an offence under Section 8 (a) of the Opium Act. The learned Magistrate (Mr. K.B. Chandel, Additional District Magistrate) discharged Dasondhi, alias Lilu, for lack of evidence. A charge-sheet under Section 9(a), Opium Act, was, however, framed against Buti Nath. By his order dated 31-3-1955, the learned Magistrate acquitted Buti Nath of the charge on the ground that the offence was not brought home to him beyond reasonable doubt. The State Government has come, up in appeal against the acquittal of Buti Nath under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The prosecution story was that on 4-1-1954 at about 1 P.M. a motor garage, situated in Mohalla Rani Tal, Nahan town, was searched by a police party, consisting of Gangbir Singh, District Inspector, Daulat Ram, Sub-Inspector, and others. Buti Nath and Dasondhi, alias Lilu, were also present, in addition to two sear...

Balak Ram Vs. Surat Ram and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Ramabhadran, J.C. (1) In this second appeal by Balak Ram, defendant No. 3, his learned counsel urged that the Courts below have erred in enforcing the terms of the compromise entered into by Kashi Ram and Ruldu (defendants 1 and 2 on one side and Mansu, father of Surat Ram, plaintiff-respondent, on the other, in the Court of the District Judge of Ghund on 26-4-1946. That compromise related to 11 bighas and 5 biswas of land as well as a residential house, situated in village Bassa Baghain. Both the land as well as the house were sold by Kashi Ram and Ruldu in favour of Balak Ram (the present appellant) on 26-12-1952. Surat Ram contended that the sale was against the terms of the compromise and, consequently, would not bind him. The trial Court (Subordinate Judge of Theog) granted Surat Ram a decree for possession of the house in dispute. As regards the land, the plaintiff was granted a declaration that the sale effected by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 was null and voi...

Ghinoo Ram Vs. Kanhya

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1957HP35

Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. This second appeal, by a defendant, arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,941 on the basis of a pronote dated 23-11-1949. The trial Court (Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu) dismissed the suit, holding that the pronote was void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act., i.e., because it had been altered, otherwise than in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties. On an appeal being taken by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge of Mahasu, differing from the view of the trial Court, came to the conclusion that the alteration in the pronote had been made by the defendant himself. He further expressed his view that, in any case, it was open to the plaintiff to fall back upon the original consideration and a decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff, without an amendment of the plaint. As regards the amount to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court was of the opinion that the plaint...