Himachal Pradesh Court March 1980 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.
Bali Ram Vs. Smt. Sunehru and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-19-1980
Reported in: AIR1981HP20
V.P. Gupta, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the order, dated 22nd May, 1979 passed by the District Judge, Simla Division, Camp at Bilaspur, by which he has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge, Ghumarwin, on 5th August, 1976, and has remanded the case to the court of Sub Judge, Ghumarwin, with the direction that Smt. Ghogan be impleaded as a party in the case, as she was a necessary party for the adjudication of the controversy between the parties to the suit.2. The brief facts are that Belt Ram (Plaintiff) appellant filed a suit for possession with respect to 4 biswas of land which is shown as kbasra number 898/1 in the Tatima attached with the plaint and which is a part of khasra number 898 measuring 15 bighas 6 biswas of Amerpur, Pargana Teoni, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The possession was claimed by demolition of the house illegally built by the (defendants) respondents.3. The allegations in the plaint are that khasra No. 898, measuring 15 big...
Smt. Dayawanti and ors. Vs. Kirpa Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1980
Reported in: AIR1981HP6
ORDERV.P. Gupta, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 28th November, 1977 passed by the Rent Controller (I) Simla, whereby he closed the remaining evidence of respondent-landlord (present petitioner).2. The brief facts are that Kirpa Ram tenant (present respondent) filed an application under Section 4 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on 23-7-1971 and prayed that the fair rent of the premises occupied by him under Smt. Daya-wanti and others landlords be fixed after necessary enquiries as envisaged under the law. This application was contested by the landlords and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed on 25-5-1972;'1. What is the fair rent of the premises in dispute?(O. P. Parties)2. Whether the respondents effected improvements in the premises in dispute after 1938 A. D., if so, its effect? (OPR)3. Relief.' Thereafter the case proceeded for the evidence of the parties. The evidence of the tenant-respondent was closed in the ...
Tejinder Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Saran and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-06-1980
Reported in: AIR1981HP15
V.P. Gupta, J.1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Mandi, dated 8th November, 1968, by which he has accepted the appeal of Ram Saran and others, defendants, and has set aside the judgment and decree of Additional Sub-Judge, Mandi, dated 27th June, 1967.2. The brief facts of the case are that Tejinder Singh and others, appellants, had filed a suit for possession against Ram Saran and others, respondents, on the ground that Ram Saran and others, (defendants), are in illegal possession of the disputed land and that they (the appellants) are the rightful owners of the suit land. This suit was contested by Ram Saran and others and they alleged that Smt. Waziro was the owner of the property and after her death her estate was inherited by Khazan Singh grandfather of the plaintiffs-appellants to the extent of one-third share; defendants 1 to 3, i. e., sons of Puran one-third share, and defendants 4 to 6 one-third share. It may be mentioned...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›