Himachal Pradesh Court July 1957 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.
The Union of India (Uoi) and anr. Vs. Felix Von Goldstein
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-31-1957
T. Ramabhadran, J.C.(1) This is an appeal, by two defendants, namely, the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh, against the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu, in a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,564/-, instituted under the provisions of Section 78 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, as applied to Himachal Pradesh. The appeal arises under the following circumstances:(2) In 1912 A. D., the plaintiff-respondent, Mr. Goldstein, purchased land, measuring 19 bighas 18 biswas in village Pagog, Koti State, from three persons, named Thakar Das, Ram Das and Gauri Datt, and built a residential house, a cottage, some outhouses thereupon and utilized the rest of the land for agricultural purposes. The transaction was, however, completed without the sanction of tile Koti Darbar, as was necessary in those times.Consequently, in the State revenue records, Mr. Goldstein's possession was shown as 'under dispute'. Ground rent at the rate of Rs. 199/- per (annum ...
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Jit Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1957
ORDERRamabhadran, J.C. (1) In this revision petition, the learned Government Advocate, vehemently argued, that no proper notice under Section 80, C. P. C., was served upon the Central Government (Union of India) and the learned District Judge of Mahasu has erred in holding otherwise.(2) The facts of the case are, that a notice under Section 80, C. P. C., was sent by the plaintiffs to the Collector of Mahasu District, as provided in Section 80 (c), C. P. C., and a copy of that notice was also sent to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of States 'for necessary action.'(3) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted, that this was not sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 80 (a), which required that a notice in writing should be given to the Secretary of the Central Government.(4) The short point for determination, therefore is whether the notice, admittedly, received by the Secretary to the Central Government, ceases to be a valid notice, because, it ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›