Himachal Pradesh Court November 1960 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.
Sundar and anr. Vs. Subedar Ram Dass and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-24-1960
Reported in: AIR1961HP18
ORDER20. The appeal fails and is hereby rejected.The cross-objection succeeds in part and in modification of the judgment and decree of the Courtbelow the suit is also decreed for recovery of Rs.100/- as past mesne profits and it is further ordered that costs in this Court and in the Courts belowshall be receivable and payable by the contestants inproportion to success and failure....
Collector Vs. Hans Raj and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-21-1960
Reported in: AIR1961HP25
C.B. Capoor, J.C. 1. This appeal and Misc. First Appeals Nos. 33, 37, 40, 45 and 48 of 1959 are directed against orders made by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in references made by the learned Collector, Bilaspur, under Section 18 ot the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter to be referred as the Act. A common question of law arises in all the appeals and for the sake ot convenience I propose to dispose of all of them by this order.2. The respondents were tenants of shops acquired for the construction of Bhakra Reservoir Lake and were awarded by the learned Collector their earnings for a period of three months as compensation. They were not satisfied by the award and required the Collector to make references under Section 18 of the Act. Their contention was that the learned Collector had underestimated their monthly income and had erred in awarding three months' earnings only as compensation.3. The learned Additional District Judge did not interfere with the finding...
Tirath Ram Vs. Chaudhry Mal Mangat Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-14-1960
Reported in: AIR1961HP22
C.B. Capoor, J.C1. This is a defendant's appeal and is directed against a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Theog.2. Briefly stated the respondents' case was that on 26th Kartik 2012 a sum of Rs. 627/10/-was found due against the appellant on account of articles purchased by him, that on 16-1-1956 the appellant through his servant sent a lame mule to the respondent with the message that the mule should be appropriated by him in full satisfaction of his dues. The latter replied that the mule was not worth more than about Rs. 300/- and that the appellant should come and settle the price of the mule. No settlement could be arrived at between the parties regarding the value of the mule. The respondent through a man of his sent the mule to the appellant who refused to accept the same.The respondent thereupon, filed the suit to recover Rs. 627/10/- as price of the articles purchased by the appellant, Rs. 20/1/- as interest thereon, Rs. 150/- as the expenses incurred on the feedin...
Ramu Vs. Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Nov-05-1960
Reported in: AIR1961HP27
ORDERC.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This is a petition for obtaining a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment and decree of this Court in Regular First Appeal No. 5 of 1958 in part dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The respondents had filed a suit for recovery of possession of the property detailed in the plaint and for recovery of Rs. 7,200/- as past mesne profits.The main allegations were that respondent No. 1 was the owner and respondent No. 2 was the tenant of the disputed land and that the petitioner had taken forcible possession of the said land in 1950, The defence, in the main, was that the petitioner was the tenant of the disputed land and the suit was not entertainable by a civil Court and that the damages claimed were in any case excessive.The trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of possession and for a sum of Rs. 6,995/- as past mesne profits. On appeal, the decree passed was modified to this extent only that the claim for...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›