Himachal Pradesh Court September 1982 Judgments

Khem Datt and ors. Vs. Palkia and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

H.S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan Sessions Division, at Nahan, dated 5th Nov. 1981.2. The facts relevant to the case may be stated, Shri Palkia respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) filed a suit against the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') and pro forma-respondent No. 2 for the possession of land in suit, by pre-emption on the basis of his being a co-sharer with pro forma-respondent No. 2. It may be pointed out that the respondent No. 2 had sold the land in suit to the defendants. As such, respondent No. 2 was also impleaded as a pro forma-defendant. The learned Senior Sub Judge, Nahan, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 29th' Oct. 1979, on the ground that since a partition had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendants, the status of the plaintiff as a co-sharer stood extinguished. The plaintiff preferred an appeal in the Court of the learned...

Dalip Singh Vs. Roop Singh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

ORDERV.P. Gupta, J.1. Aggrieved from the order Dt. 7-6-1980 passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Mandi, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this revision petition.2. The facts briefly are that the plaintiff (now petitioner) filed a suit on 27-10-1975, in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Mandi, for a decree of declaration to the effect that he had perfected his title as an owner of the disputed land (described in the plaint) by adverse possession or in the alternative for declaration that he was entitled to the benefit of Rule 21 of the Himachal Pradesh Nautor Rules, 1954. Only State of Himachal Pradesh (now respondent No. 4) was a defendant and the suit was contested by the State denying the plaintiff's claim.3. Issues in the case were framed on 26-12-1977 and five witnesses of the plaintiff were also recorded. On 24-10-1979, the plaintiff was allowed last opportunity to produce his remaining evidence, and the case was adjourned to 26-12-1979.4. On 17-12-1979, Roop Singh (now respondent No. 1)...

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. Sh. Shankroo

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1983CriLJ63

ORDERVyas Dey Misra, C.J.1. When it came to my notice that the respondent has been only fined for offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, I decided to issue a notice of enhancement One of the reasons for issuing this notice was that illicit felling of trees is rampant in the State and the connivance of some forest officials and others is common knowledge. In the meantime the respondent filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence though he had pleaded guilty. The learned Sessions Judge found that the procedure adopted by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, Camp at Rajgarh, was defective. The defect was that the respondent was not given the substance of the accusation with which he was charged. I find that at serial No. 6 of the form maintained in terms of Section 263 of the Cr. P.C. the offence complained of is shown as : '33 I. F. Act'. This was indeed a serious breach of the procedure. It was the duly of the trial court to give the substance of the offence by...