Himachal Pradesh Court August 1978 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.
Smt. Samundra Devi Vs. Chand Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-23-1978
Reported in: AIR1979HP24
T.U. Mehta, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the second appeal No. 145 of 1967 which has been decided by a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh Bench, (1972) 2 Sim LJ 366 (Delhi) (H.P. Bench) against the present appellant Smt. Sumendra Devi. The appeal is filed on a certificate of fitness having been given by the learned Single Judge who has decided the second appeal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant Sumendra Devi filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Nurpur on 14-8-1963 for a decree of joint possession of the disputed land claiming one-half share in the land as owner. Her name as co-owner wag entered in the jamabandi after the death of her father Larjoo. The appellant's case is that soon after her marriage the had gone to reside at her husband's house In another village and for some years the respondents and their predecessors went on giving her share in the produce from the land, but thereafter they stopped the same. Accordin...
X Vs. Y and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-10-1978
Reported in: AIR1979HP29
ORDERT.U. Mehta, C.J. 1. This is an application for transfer of Civil Suit No. 130/6/77 from the court of Solan to the Court at Simla principally on the ground that when the hearing of the case took place on 1-10-1977 in presence of the then Chief Justice of this Court who was on inspection tour, the Advocate of the other side repeatedly interrupted the arguments of the Advocate of the petitioner, and even though he used 'abusive and highly defamatory language' against the petitioner's Advocate, the presiding officer of the Court could not restrain him. The contention is that the Presiding Officer of the court did not restrain the Advocate of the other side because he 'seems to be hand in glove' with the counsel of the other side. 2. Short facts of the case, which form the background, can be stated as under. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have filed the above referred suit for possession of an agricultural land against the present petitioner in the court of the Senior Sub Judge, Solan in ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›