Himachal Pradesh Court December 1962 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.
Jagat NaraIn and ors. Vs. Sita Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: AIR1963HP25
C.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This application in revision and application in revision No. 4 of 1962 arise out of a common order made by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge Mahasu in civil suits Nos. 82/111/1 and 83/112/1 of 1959 and as a common question of law arises in both the applications I propose to dispose of them by this order. 2. The respondent Sita Ram had filed two suits; against Vidyadhar one of which No. 82/111/1 was for recovery of possession of a house and some land and the other was for recovery of damages. Vidyadhar died on 1-10-1960 drring the pendency of the aforesaid suits. An application was made by the respondent in both the cases to bring Smt. Kalawati, the widow of the deceased, on record as the legal representative of the deceased. On 14-11-1960 she made an application for getting the exparte order made against her set aside and therein contended that the suits had abated inasmuch as Smt. Durga Devi, the mother of the deceased Vidyadhar, was alive and under the Hindu la...
Smt. Sumitra and anr. Vs. Smt. Maharaju and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-11-1962
Reported in: AIR1963HP21
C.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This second appeal by Smts. Sumitra and Kagdu is directed against a judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Mandi and Chamba districts whereby an appeal preferred by the respondents against a judgment and decree of the learned additional Subordinate Judge Mandi dismissing the suit filed by respondent No. 1 was accepted. 2. Respondent No. 1 was the daughter and respondent No. 2 was the widow of Panjku. Respondent No. 2 executed a deed of gift dated 7-2-1956 in favour of respondent No. 1 and the appellants in respect of the property set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaint in equal shares. Respondent No. 1 alleged that her father was the last male-holder of the disputed property and respondent No. 2 had merely limited rights therein and was not competent to make a gift in respect of it, that the appellants were her illegitimate daughters and on the aforesaid allegations she filed the suit for a declaration that the aforesaid deed of gift was void and ineffecti...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›