Himachal Pradesh Court March 1983 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.
Khem Singh and ors. Vs. Kapur Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-25-1983
V.P. Gupta, J. 1. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree, dated 28-9-1981, passed by the District Judge, Mandi, Khem Singh (defendant 1) has filed this appeal.2. Smt. Lachhi and Smt. Balmo (de-fendants 2 and 3) daughters of Jai Ram sold land measuring 3-13-15 bighas, i.e. l-/10th share of Khata No. 12/26 to 30, measuring 36-17-12 bighas, situate in village Shamsher Mahal Kurani, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, to Khem Singh (defendant 1) for Rs. 3000/-, vide registered sale deed dated 11-10-1977.3. Kapoor Singh (plaintiff) filed a suit for possession of this land by pre-emption, alleging that the plaintiff being a co-sharer in the Khata and also brother of the vendors has a preferential right of pre-emption. He further alleged that he offered the whole of the sale price to the defendants but the defendants refused to accept the same. He also alleged that no notice of the sale was given to him.4. The suit was contested by the defendants and it was alleged that the suit was not properly...
B.N. Pandey Vs. Smt. Indira Chohan
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1983
T.R. Handa, J.1. The petitioner Shri B. N. Pandey was a tenant under the respondent landlady Smt. Indira Chohan in respect of a residential set located within the municipal limits of Simla. The respondent landlady brought an action for ejectment of the petitioner from the said premises in the Court of Rent Controller Simla under Section 14, H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The main ground on which the ejectment of the petitioner was 'claimed was that the respondent landlady required the premises in question bona fide for her own residential use. The petitioner who initially contested the claim of the landlady, later conceded before the Controller that the respondent landlady required the premises in question for her bona fide use. A compromise order for ejectment of the petitioner was, therefore, passed by the Controller. This order was passed on 25-9-1979. As mutually agreed between the parties, the Controller, however, allowed the petitioner lime up...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›