Himachal Pradesh Court March 1985 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.
Janku and ors. Vs. Nagnoo and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-29-1985
Reported in: AIR1986HP10
V.P. Gupta, J.1. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 8-6-1972 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Mandi, the plaintiff appellants have preferred this appeal.2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellants (hereinafter the plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were the owners of half share in the suit land measuring 76-2-7 bighas situate in Mauza Neri (fully detailed in the plaint) which was liable to be partitioned in accordance with the shares of the parties. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that they had applied for partition of the land to the revenue authorities but upon the objections of the respondents (hereinafter the defendants) their application for partition was disallowed on 7-11-1967 (Ex.PA) and the parties were directed to get the question of title decided through a civil Court. In these circumstances, this suit was filed in the Court of Sub Judge Sundernagar on 10-5-1968.3. The defendants contested the suit and claimed that there had been...
Smt. Mathru and ors. Vs. Smt. Rami
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-26-1985
Reported in: AIR1986HP6
ORDERV.P. Gupta, J.1. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 25-8-1973 passed by the District Judge, Mandi the appellants (hereinafter the plaintiffs) have filed the present appeal.2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent (hereinafter the defendant) to the effect that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the share of Lohka in land measuring 24-3-1 bighas (fully detailed in the plaint) situate in Khaleen, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. The plaintiffs are the daughters and widow of Labhdoo (brother of Lohka) and the defendant is the sister of Lohka. Labhdoo and Lohka purchased the disputed land in equal shares from Harbhaj (husband of defendant) in 1949. After about 4/5 years of this purchase Lohka left his house and his whereabouts were unknown since then. It is alleged that he is presumed to have died about 14/15 years back and Labhdoo remained in possession of this land. After th...
Des Raj and anr. Vs. Dharam Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1985
Reported in: AIR1986HP95
ORDER1. Ordinarily this Court does not interfere in revision with a discretionary order passed by the lower Appellate Court granting interim relief pending disposal of the suit. In the present case, however, the lower Appellate Court is shown to have committed an error of jurisdiction resulting in miscarriage of justice and intervention has, therefore, become unavoidable.2. The revision arises out of an application for interim relief made in a suit instituted by the first respondent (original plaintiff) against the petitioners (original defendants). The Trial Court rejected the application for interim relief. An appeal was carried against the said order to the District Court, Una. It appears that while the appeal was pending in the District Court, an application was made on behalf of the first respondent on October 27, 1984 praying that he 'be allowed to attach two documents with the file of appeal and the same may also be read in the lower Court file'. The order-sheet shows that the a...
Shivalik Agro Poly Products Ltd. Vs. Jagdish Raj Mago and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-15-1985
Reported in: AIR1986HP4
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. The appeal arises out of an accident which occurred at about 245 p.m. on September 21, 1980, in the course of which one Shashi Kant, who was ruling on the pillion seat of a Motor-cycle which was involved in the accident, received fatal injuries, as a result of which he died on the next day leaving behind him his parents and an unmarried sister. The deceased, who was aged about 24 at the time of his death, was a diploma holder in Engineering and employed as Junior Engineer in the Minor Irrigation and Tube-well Corporation, Haryana. His monthly emoluments were Rs. 714.25 at the time of his death. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the dependency benefit/loss to the estate was required to be computed at Rs. 400/- per month. On that basis, the datura figure was worked out at Rs. 4800/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 22, the Tribunal computed the compensation at Rs. 1,05,600.00. Adding to thesaid amount a sum of Rs. 3,000/- by way of conventional figure of co...
Gauri Lal and ors. Vs. Smt. Sujham Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-1985
Reported in: AIR1986HP3
ORDERP.D. Desai, C.J.1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Rama Nand (original plaintiff), Rama Nand had instituted a suit against the respondent (defendant 2) and one Ramayan Dassi (defendant 1) for a declaration that Ramayan Dassi could not have sold the suit land without the consent of the plaintiff as per the custom prevalent in the area since the land was inherited by her on the death of her husband and for the consequential relief of the cancellation of mutation entry recording the sale. It appears that in the course of the suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties according to which the plaintiff agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the defendants and the defendants agreed to hand over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff on receipt of such sum after harvesting the standing crop. On the basis of the compromise a decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on July 25, 1975, 'subject to paymen...
Laxmi Furniture and Saw Mills, Simla Vs. Himachal Pradesh Financial Co ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-14-1985
Reported in: AIR1985HP108
ORDERP.D. Desai, C.J. 1. The impugned decision rendered in a proceeding for the execution of an order made under Section 32 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is challenged insofar as it is adverse to the petitioner in regard to one and only one matter, namely, the rejection of the petitioner's contention that the respondent is not entitled to the recovery of future interest. By 'future interest' what is meant is the interest accruing due after the date of the order till the date of recovery.2. In Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation v. M/s. Himachal Printing Press, FAO No. 73 of 1980, decided on August 26, 1980 by a Division Bench consisting of V. D. Misra, C,J. and H. Section Thakur, J., the question whether under Section 32, Sub-section (1) of the Act the District Judge has the power to award future interest arose for consideration. The following pertinent observations made in the course of the judgment rendered in the said case ar...
Smt. Dawarka Devi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-1985
Reported in: AIR1986HP72
P.D. Desai, C.J.1. The petitioner, aged about 76, is the widow of one Khem Chand who died on July 3, 1981. Khem Chand was a subject of the former Princely State of Mandi. The said Princely State merged with the Union of India after independence and became a part of Himachal Pradesh on May 1,1948. Khem Chand was appointed as Ahlmad in the Judicial Department of the ex-State of Mandi on 12th Bhadon 1983 BK (27-8-1926). Khem Chand was placed under suspension on 27th Chet 1994 BK(9-4-1937) for taking part in the Praja Mandal movement which was launched in the said native State. On 11th Baisakh 1994 BK (23-4-1937), Khem Chand was dismissed from service with effect from the date of his suspension. A copy of the service record of Khem Chand, which is on the record at Annexure PB, evidences the facts set out above.2. On 19th Jeth 97 BK (31-5-1940), Khem Chand was re-employed as Ahlmad by the ex-Princely State of Mandi. Be it stated, however, that the employment given accordingly was of a fresh...
Krishan and ors. Vs. Krishanoo and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-13-1985
Reported in: AIR1985HP103
H.S. Thakur, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the decree and (contd. on col. 2)judgment of the learned single Judge dated Nov. 9, 1973, who affirmed the decree and judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge.2. A few facts relevant to decide this appeal may be stated. The land in dispute is one fourth share in Khasra Nos. 35, 38, 2/2, 3, 4, 53/2, 57, 58/2, 39, 45 and 52 measuring 43 bighas and 2 biswas situated in village Bamta. In order to understand this case, it is necessary to set out the genealogical table which gives the relationship of the' parties and to make certain observations : Balku | ____________|___________________________ | | | Kahna Jalam Jagta | | | | Masadi | _________________| (died issueless) | | | | Kalia Bhola | | (Mst. Phini | | widow) | | | _______|_________________ ___________________|__________ | | | | |Lobhi Negi Gopal Jiwanoo Sardaroo Budhoo(Deft.6) (Deft.5) (Deft. 4) (died issueless) | (Deft.1) | _________|____________ | | ...
Som Nath Vs. Sewa Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-08-1985
Reported in: AIR1986HP59
ORDERT.R. Handa, J. 1. The petitioner Som Nath is the landlord arid the respondent Sewa Ram is his tenant in respect of a residential set forming part of the premises known as 'Som Niwas' situate in Ban Mohalla, Solan. The petitioner brought an action for ejectment of the respondent from the said premises under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', on the grounds of (i) non payment of arrears of rent (ii) personal requirement. The Rent Controller found that the respondent was liable for ejectment on both the above mentioned grounds and he, therefore, vide his order dt. 29-4-1977 directed the respondent to put the petitioner-landlord in possession of the demised premises within three months from the date of his order. In view of the provisions of the first proviso to Section 14(2) (i) of the Act, however, the Controller observed in his order that the order of ejectment passed against the respondent on the ground of non-pay...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›