Himachal Pradesh Court October 1965 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.
Joginder Sen Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1967HP6
1. This appeal, by the plaintiff, against a decree and judgment of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi has arisen out of a suit, for possession of land, measuring 7 bighas 10 biswas and 1 biswansi, comprised in Khasra Nos. 5, 6 and 43/34, situated in village Bhangauhli, a suburb of Mandi Town, in Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, after demolishing the buildings, standing thereon, or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 25,050/ as value of the land. The suit was founded on the following allegations:2. The plaintiff was the Ruler of Mandi State, now merged in Himachal Pradesh. since 1st May, 1948. The land, in suit, was acquired by the plaintiff, in 1946, from its former owners, for his personal requirement for starling and housing a private dairy farm The land was considered as a part of the Bijai Palace Estate, the personal and private property of the plaintiff. The land remained in possession of the plaintiff even after the merger of Mandi State with Himachal Pradesh3. In Fe...
Baboo Ram Vs. Ajmer Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-28-1965
Reported in: AIR1966HP77
Om Parkash, J. 1. The facts, giving rise to this appeal, against an order of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, whereby an appeal, against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Solan, was dismissed, are as follows:2. The respondent had filed an application, under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, as applied to Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act), before the controller, Solan, for evicting the appellant, from a motor garage, owned by the respondent. It was alleged that the appellant was a tenant of the motor garage, that he had not paid 'the rent and' that the respondent required the motor garage for his own occupation. The appellant paid the rent before the controller. He contested the allegation that the respondent required the motor garage for his personal use. The controller accepted the plea of the respondent that he required the motor garage for his personal use. He allowed the application of the respondent and passed an ejectment ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›