Himachal Pradesh Court June 1977 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.
Tralok Chand and anr. Vs. Arjun Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-1977
Reported in: AIR1978HP2
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The appellants above named have preferred this appeal against the decision given by the court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Sirmur District in suit No. 137/1 of 1970 on his file dismissing the appellants' suit for possession of the suit premises and eviction of the respondent-defendants therefrom. The suit is with reference to the premises known as old Khalsa Hotel situated on the Mall, Solan bearing Municipal Nos 71/2 and 71/3. The respondents herein are the heirs and legal representatives of late Sardar Kartar Singh who was occupying the suit premises having initially taken them on lease.2. The record of the case shows that the deceased Kartar Singh originally executed rent note Ex. P-15 in favour of one Lala Ram Chander, father of the plaintiffs, on 19-10-1935. That rent note was for a fixed period of two years. Reference to the rent note shows that Kartar Singh has executed this rent note as proprietor of 'Pratap Khalsa Hotel' i. e. in his personal capacity. The record ...
Kesru and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-28-1977
Reported in: 1978CriLJ297
ORDERC.R. Thakur, J.1. Sarvshri Kesaru and others have come up in revision Under Section 435 read with Sections 439 and 561-A of the Cri. P.C. 1898 against the order of the Sessions Judge, Simla, whereby he set aside the order of discharge passed by the Chiei Judicial Magistrate, Kalpa, on 30-4-1975.2. The police had challaned Kesaru and others Under Section 379/449 IPC, but the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the statements Under Section 161 CrIPC recorded by the police, and on the ground that there was delay of 17 days in lodging the F. I. R. found that no case had been made out against the accused persons and that the charge against the accused was groundless. Further he held,, 'the case has been hanging fire since 1972, there was no progress for want of P. P. inasmuch as (sic) any representation on behalf of the State, with the result that the accused had already suffered much financially and mentally which was much more punishment than what could be awared in law even if...
Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. Hira Lal
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1977HP91
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. This is a defendant's revision petition directed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kangra permitting the plaintiff to withdraw his suit with liberty to file a fresh suit.2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was the owner in possession of the disputed land. During the pendency of the suit he discovered that the land had been acquired by the State Government. Accordingly, he applied under Order 53, Rule 1 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The basis of the application was that as the land had been acquired by the State Government the suit must fail by reason of a formal defect inasmuch as the State was not a party to the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application and by his order dated October 3, 1974 dismissed the plaintiff's suit granting permission to file a fresh suit.3. In this revision petition, learned counsel for the defendant-petitio...
Shyam Lal, Etc. Vs. Sultan Singh, Etc.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-23-1977
Reported in: AIR1977HP92
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J.1. The Compensation Officer, Paonta, has made this and the connected references in three cases pending before him under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. The references purport to have been made under Section 113 and O. 46 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the statement of the case drawn up by the Compensation Officer, the point on which the opinion of this Court is sought is whether Section 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act is ultra vires on the ground that it violates the fundamental rights of the respondent.2. At the outset, the question for consideration is whether the three references are competent. Section 113 of the Code empowers a court to state a case and refer it for the opinion of the High Court. O. 46 Rule 1 of the Code provides for a reference to the High Court where in certain cases a court trying a suit or appeal or executing ...
Smt. Ved Prabha Vs. Kanchan Lal and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-21-1977
Reported in: AIR1977HP96
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a defendants' revision petition against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Simla, in a suit for ejectment and damages.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that they were owners of a certain property, that one Rai Sahib Dina Nath was a statutory tenant therein, that on his death the statutory tenancy came to an end, but the defendants, who were his widow and daughter respectively, continued in illegal occupation. Accordingly, they prayed for a decree for possession of the property and damages for the use and occupation of the property from May 16, 1967, the date of institution of the suit, with future damages till the date of delivery of possession. A written statement was filed by the defendants setting out certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the suit, and they intended to file a written statement subsequently on the merits of the case. The trial Court framed issues on the points raised by the plaint and the initial writt...
Durga Dass Vs. Smt. Gitan Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1977HP65
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. This is a defendants' revision petition against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Hamirpur, refusing to stay a suit under Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure. 2. An application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was made by the defendants in the suit alleging that the matter in issue in the suit was also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit and therefore the subsequent suit should be stayed. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge by the order dated February 5, 1076, rejected the application on the ground that inasmuch as the previously instituted suit had been disposed of by the trial Court it could not be described as a pending suit and the mere circumstance that a Letters Patent appeal had arisen out of that suit and was pending was of no significance. The present revision petition is directed against that order. 3. It is difficult to accept the view taken by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge. In S...
Smt. Ram Piari Vs. Shri Amar Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-20-1977
Reported in: AIR1978HP22
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a defendant's revision petition against the order of the learned. Subordinate Judge, Palampur, permitting the respondents to withdraw the suit filed by them with liberty to file a fresh suit.2. The plaintiffs filed a representative suit for a declaration that they were owners in possession of the land in suit, enjoying several specific rights therein, and a sale deed dated July 13, 1973 executed by the second defendant was null and void and not binding on them. An application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil P. C. was filed along with the plaint. It appears that the trial Court omitted to dispose of the application and proceeded with the trial of the suit When it had recorded the evidence and reached the stage of arguments, it was discovered that the application under Order 1, Rule 8 has not been disposed of. The plaintiffs applied to the trial Court requesting it to dispose of that application. But before it could be disposed of, counsel for the plaintiff...
NaraIn Singh Vs. Smt. Rukmani
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-15-1977
Reported in: AIR1977HP93
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of the learned District Judge, Solan Division, awarding litigation expenses and maintenance pendente-lite to the wife for the duration of a petition by the wife under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act.2. During the pendency of the petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife applied under Section 24 of the Act for an order directing the husband to pay her maintenance and litigation expenses. On April 7, 1977, the learned District Judge, Solan Division made an order awarding Rs. 150/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 30/- per month as maintenance pendente lite.3. Shri Inder Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has very fairly pointed out that it is doubtful whether the ap-peal is maintainable in view of the changed state of law. Having considered the matter, we are of opinion that the appeal must be rejected as incompetent. Until 1976, Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act provided:'28. Enforcement of, an...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›