Himachal Pradesh Court June 1964 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.
Krishan Dev Vs. Smt. Ram Piari
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-1964
Reported in: AIR1964HP34
ORDEROm Parkash, J.C.1. This revision-petition is directed against a decree of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, whereby, as a result of variation of a decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu, the respondent was granted a decree for possession of a site, after removal of the structures, put up by the petitioner.2. The respondent had brought a suit for possession of a portion of the site, comprised in Khasra No. 19, situated in bazar Badah (popular !y known as Dhali bazar, a suburb of Simla), after demolition of the structures, put by the petitioner, and for the issue of a permanent injunction. The allegations of the respondent were that the site, in dispute, which was previously comprised, in Khasra Nos. 107 and 108, village Badah, was owned by M/S. Darbari Lal Vasu Dev, and was purchased by her husband, on the basis of a registered sale-deed dated 30-7-1957, that her husband had transferred the site in her favour, that the petitioner was a sub-tenant of the land adjoi...
Joban Dass and ors. Vs. Shibu
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-10-1964
Reported in: AIR1964HP30,1964CriLJ295
ORDEROm Parkash, J.C.1. This is a reference, made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasu, Sirmur, Bilaspur and Kinnaur Sessions Division. The facts, which have led to the making of the reference, are as follows:The petitioners were convicted and sentenced, under Section 447, I. P. C., on the 29th March, 1963, by the learned Magistrate 1st Class Theog, On a complaint, filed by Shibu, respondent, alleging, that he was the owner and in possession, of 1 Bigha and 9 Biswas of land, and that the petitioners had, without any right, and by force, encroached upon 3 biswas, out of the aforesaid land,by constructing a stone wall. Against their conviction and sentence, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was subsequently treated as a revision-petition, in the Court of the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge made a reference to this Court that the conviction and sentence of the petitioners be quashed. But this Court did not accept the reference, and by its order, dated the 4th September, 1...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›