Himachal Pradesh Court September 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.
Devi Singh and ors. Vs. Mt. Phulma and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-13-1960
Reported in: AIR1961HP10
C.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal and arises out of a suit filed by them for a declaration that the gift-deed dated 16-3-1955 executed by Mt. Phulma, defendant No. 1, in respect of a one-half share of land measuring 245 bighas 6 biswas and five houses situated in village Malheri and some other property, described in the heading of the plaint, in favour of Jit Singh, the since deceased defendant No. 2, and Rati Rain, defendant No. 3, was void and ineffective.2. The main allegations were that the plaintiffs, Mehar Singh, the husband of Mt. Phulma, and Jit Singh and Rati Ram were members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara branch of the Hindu Law, that the property comprised in the deed of gift, referred to above, was coparcenary property and was not in possession of Mt. Phulma and as such she was not competent to transfer the same. In the alternative, it was alleged that even if the aforesaid property is held to have been the self-acquired property of Mehar ...
Mt. Kalawati Vs. Devi Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-02-1960
Reported in: AIR1961HP1
C.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the appellant under Ss. 10 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant was married to the respondent about eight years prior to the filing of the petition. At that time she was minor and was given in marriage by her brother who was also then a minor. The allegations were that ever since the marriage the respondent had been ill-treating and belabouring the appellant, that for more than two years prior to the filing of the petition he had deserted her and since then she had been living at her father's house.2. The factum of marriage was not denied by the respondent. It was, however, repudiated that he was cruel to the appellant or had deserted her. The appellant, it was alleged, had of her own accord left his house in March, 1958, and had refused to return to his house, although repeated efforts were made by him to persuade her to come back.3. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge recorded a finding against the ap...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›