Himachal Pradesh Court September 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.
Chetu and anr. Vs. Collector and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-30-1965
Reported in: AIR1966HP46
ORDEROm Parkash, J.1. This is a petition, under Article 133 of file Constitution of India The fads, giving rise to the petition, are as under; 2. Land, situated in Parana Nagar, Sundar Nagar. District Mandi some of which was under the proprietorship, and some under the tenancy, of Dagu respondent No. 2, was acquired, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, for the construction of Beas-Sutlej-Link Colony The Collector, respondent No. 1, awarded compensation with respect to the acquisition of the land. The petitioners filed objections against the award of the Collector, claiming 2/5th share in the compensation, on the ground that the land acquired was joint Hindu famih property of the joint Hindu family, consisting of Dagu respondent No.2 and his four sons the two petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 and 5.2a. The petitioners had also instituted two suits, against respondents Nos. 2 to 5, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sundar-nagar. In one of the suits, the petitioners ha...
Parbia Ram Vs. Smt. Thopli and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-22-1965
Reported in: AIR1966HP20
Om Parkash, J.1. This is an appeal, against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi. 2. The appellant had filed a petition, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights, against respondent No. 1 and for the issue of a mandatory injunction against respondents Nos. 2 to 4. The allegations, in the petition, were that respondent No. 1 was the legally wedded wife of the appellant, that their marriage had been per formed under custom, prevalent in the brotherhood and the illaca, that respondent No. 1 had lived with the appellant for one and a half years after the marriage and that she had been taken away by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 on the 23rd May, 1952 to their house and had not been sent back, despite repeated requests.3. The petition was contested, on behalf of the respondents, on various grounds. It is unnecessary to set forth all those grounds. The only ground, relevant for the decision of this appeal, was that respondent No. 1 had been ne...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›