Himachal Pradesh Court July 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.
Harbans Lal Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1967HP10,1967CriLJ62
Om Parkash, J.C.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge Mandi and Chamba Sessions Division, convicting and sentencing the appellant, under Sections 328 and 201 I. P. C. The case of the prosecution against the appellant, was as follows :2. The appellant, Birchu Ram, Ramswarup and Rup Lal were employed in the Sutlej-Beas Link Project, at Sundarnagar. The appellant and Mirchu Ram were labourers. Ramswarup was a driller and Rup Lal was a Chaukidar of the store. The appellant, Mirchu Rani and Rup Lal lived in tents at Musahab-Ka-bagh. The appellant and Mirchu Ram were living in one tent, while Rup Lal was living in another adjoining tent. The appellant and Mirchu Ram used to pilfer kerosene oil from the store. Rup Lal used to warn them against their nefarious activity of committing theft. Ramswarup had instigated the appellant and Mirchu Ram to put an end to the life of Rup Lal. He had assured them that he would spend money to save them from any harm and wo...
Mina Ram Vs. Amolak Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-17-1965
Reported in: AIR1966HP4
ORDER1. This revision-petition is directed against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu, calling upon the petitioner to pay additional court-foes, on the plaint filed by him. 2. The petitioner had brought a suit, against respondent No. 1 and others, for a declaration that the lands and houses, described in the plaint, were joint Hindu family property of the petitioner and respondent No. 1, for separate possession, by partition, of his half share, in the houses and for rendition of accounts. The suit was based in brief, on the following allegations:3. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 are real brothers Respondent No. 2 is their step-brother. Their father died in August, 1932, leaving behind movable and immovable property. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 held the properly, after the death of their father, as members of a joint Hindu family. After some lime, respondent No. 2 separated, but the petitioner and respondent No. 1 continued to be joint. With jo...
Karma Nand Vs. Sewa Nand and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-14-1965
Reported in: AIR1966HP17
Om Parkash, J.1. The sole question, which requires determination, in this appeal, against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge, Kinnaur, is whether the suit of the appellant was barred by time. 2. The appellant had instituted a suit, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kalpa, for a declaration that the mortgage-deed dated 2-11-1958, executed by the appellant and respondent No. 2, in favour of respondent No. 1, was without consideration and void. It was alleged, in the plaint, that the possession of the land mortgaged, never passed to respondent No. 1 and that the mortgage deed was got executed without consideration, and under undue influence The suit was contested on behalf of respondent No. 1. One of the grounds, taken up, by him, was that the suit was barred by limitation. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that Article 91, Limitation Act, was applicable to the suit of the appellant and that as the suit was instituted more than three years after the execution o...
Mst. Maro and ors. Vs. Paras Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-1965
Reported in: AIR1966HP22
Om Parkash, J.1. The only question, which was canvassed, in this appeal, against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge. Bilaspur was whether according to custom, prevalent in Bilaspur, a daughter was excluded from inheritance of her father, by near collaterals. That question had arisen in a case, relating to the estate of Gokal Gokal was a resident of Lahot village. Pargana Ajmerpur, District Bilaspur Appellant No. 1 is his daughter and appellants Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of appellant No. 1. Respondent No. 1 is the nephew of Gokal and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are his grand-nephews. Respondent No. 4 is another daughter of Gokal Gokal had no son. After his death, his estate was inherited by his widow Smt. Chukhri Smt. Chukhri alienated 22 bighas and 10 biswas of land out of the land inherited from Gokai. in favour of Jiwan Singh respondent No. 5. for Rs. 600. That alienation was set aside, on a suit, brought by respondent No. 1 and the father of respondents Nos. 2 and 3....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›