Himachal Pradesh Court September 1963 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.
Nanku and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-14-1963
Reported in: AIR1964HP16
C.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This second appeal by Nanku, Hira and Abhai Ram is directed against an appellate order of the learned District Judge Mahasu, Sirtnur, Bilaspur and Kinnaur Districts whereby an order made by the Compensation Officer dismissing the application under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, hereinafter to be referred as the Abolition Act, filed by the appellants and pro forma respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was set aside and the said application was allowed subject to a payment of Rs. 1567.02 Np.2. The aforesaid application related to 9 Bighas 1 Biswa of land comprised in Khasra No. 86 si-uate in village, Jungle Narenti, and was filed against the Union of India. The defence put forward on behalf of Union of India was that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist between the parties, that the Abolition Act was not applicable to land owned by the Government, that valuable trees stood on the aforesaid land whic...
Shri Parsa Vs. Shri Kanshi Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-12-1963
Reported in: AIR1964HP12
ORDERC.B. Capoor, J.C.1. This application in revision by Shri Parsa is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Small Cause Court, Theog, whereby a suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner for recovery, of a sum of Rs. 180/- was decreed for a sum of Rs. 142/- with proportionate cost. The office objection is that the application was not maintainable in view of the 2nd proviso to paragraph 35(1)(b) of the Himachal Pradesh Courts Order 1948 hereinafter to be referred as the Order 1948.2. The application was admitted subject to the aforesaid objection. The same objection has been put forward on behalf of the respondent.3. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the application in revision is maintainable. Para 35 (1) of the Order 1948 reads as below:'The Court of the Judicial Commissioner may call for the record of any case which has been decided by a Civil Court subordinate to it and in which no appeal lies to it, and (a) if the Civil Co...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›