Himachal Pradesh Court March 1971 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.
Gurpal Singh and anr. Vs. Ramswaroop
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-31-1971
Reported in: AIR1972HP99
Chet Ram Thakur, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order, dated 15th July, 1968. passed by the District Judge, Sirmur District at Nahan, whereby he accepted the appeal of Ram Sarup and dismissed the appeal of the present appellants. The landowners have filed separate appeals against this order and both of them will be disposed of by this judgment.2. The facts in brief are that the land in question originally belonged to Mahant Gurdyal Singh, who gifted this land in favour of his minor sons, Gurpal Singh and Karanvir Singh, vide mutation No. 58, dated 17th January, 1966, along with other land. This land was in the tenancy of Ram Sarup who filed an application under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquisition of the right, title and interest of the landlord in the land.3. The minors who had become owners of this land by virtue of the gift made in their favour by their...
Dharam Pal Vs. the State
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1971HP17,1971CriLJ1750
D.B. Lal, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, whereby he has convicted Dharampal aged 17 years. under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The prosecution case may briefly be stated. On 2nd November, 1968 at about 5.00 P.M. Kumari Ishro aged 10 years, who is the daughter of Munshi Ram of village Chhatrer, Tehsil Hamirpur was sent by her father to get grinded wheat at the flour machine of village Toni. The girl returned with a small bag of flour and when she reached the field of one Devi Singh, Dharampal accused had been waiting to meet her. He gave her a push, untied the string of her Salwar and criminally assaulted her. It is stated that when the girl started crying, her mouth was attempted to be gagged by her Dopatta. The penetration had t...
Roop Singh Vs. Nirmoo
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1971
Reported in: AIR1971HP24
D.B. Lal, J.1. This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Civil P. Code and is directed against the decision of the District Judge, Mahasu, whereby he has rejected the application of the appellant, Roop Singh, for grant of interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil P. Code. 2. The facts of the case are, that Roop Singh, plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration in respect of landed property situate in various 'Khewats' belonging to Chak Mau and some Khasra numbers of Chak Kiri, Pargana Shak as well as Chak Pojarli in Tehsil Chopal of the District of Mahasu. The allegation was, that Roop Singh is adopted son of one Ram Singh who was admittedly the owner of this landed property. It was stated that Roop Singh is in physical possession over the property, but Shrimati Nirmu and Shri Karam Singh, defendants, who are respondents before us, claim to possess title for the property, the former being daughter and the latter being brother of the deceased Ram Singh. They also ...
Atma Ram Vs. Paras Ram and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-23-1971
Reported in: AIR1971HP11
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The plaintiff-appellant had brought a suit for redemption of land, measuring 31 Bighas and 16 Bis-was, consisting of ten plots with Khasra Nos. 109/3, 128, 131/1 289/130, 292/132, . 133, 138, 143, 157 and 159 and two houses standing in Khasra No. 137 in village Sandoo, Tehsil Theog in the district of Mahasu. The Khewat and Khatauni numbers were stated in the plaint to be: 29/43-44. The allegation in the plaint was that this property was first mortgaged on 3-12-1942 to Bhagta alias Bhagat Ram, defendant No. 1, in lieu of Rs. 700/-and that Bhagta. was given actual possession of all the plots in dispute as the mortgage was usufructuary. But, later on, on 14-6-1954, an additional sum of Rs. 800/- was said to have been taken from Bhagta and his son Daulat Ram, defendant No. 2, and the usufructuary mortgage was alleged to have been converted into one to both the father and the son who, it was said, had realized farmore than the amount due on the mortgage so that the property...
Nand Gopal and ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-17-1971
Reported in: AIR1971HP1
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The petitioners, before me, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are old tenants in occupation of a property known as the Metro-pole Hotel Estate at Simla. On 16th March, 1968, a notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 2nd February, 1968. was published in the official gazette showing that this property was to be acquired, proceedings under Sections 5-A and 6, and, thereafter, an award dated 30th October, 1969, under Section 11 of the Act took place in accordance with law. These proceedings are not challenged by the petitioners. The opposite party No. 1 is the Land Acquisition Collector of Simla who, after the above-mentioned proceedings, authorized his Naib-Tehsildar, opposite party No. 2, to take possession of the property acquired for a public purpose as indicated above. Opposite party No. 3 is the Secretary to the Public Works' Department of the Government of Himanchal Pradesh. Opposite party...
Moti Vs. Roshan and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-10-1971
Reported in: AIR1971HP5
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The plaintiff-appellant had sued for declaration and joint possession of land, 62 Bighas and 3 Biswa in area, situated in Mauza Devki, Pargana Bharmour, in Khata No. 62 Khatauni No. 92 Khasra Nos. 1134, 1135, 1140, 1142, 1144, 1147 to 1150, 1166 and 1168. The only basis of his claim disclosed in the plaint dated 12-12-1957 was that he was entered as owner of a half of the above-mentioned land and that the defendants were entered as owners of the other half. The defendants, who are the sons of a man called Saraf and grandsons of Chand, denied the right and title of the plaintiff to any part of the land in dispute despite the entry of his name in the revenue records which, according to the defendants, was erroneous. The plaintiff is a nephew of Chand mentioned above. He set up, in the course of evidence, aright flowing from a gift by Smt. Diu-kari, the widow of Chand, who was alive at the time when the suit was brought and is presumably still alive but was not examined a...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›