Himachal Pradesh Court April 1986 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.
Bhagwat Parshad Verma Vs. Mukat Lal and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987HP51
ORDERH.S. Thakur, Ag. C.J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (3), Shimla, dated March 17, 1986, whereby the document marked 'X' has been held to be inadmissible in evidence.2. A few facts relevant to decide this revision petition may be stated. The petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit against respondents/defendants (hereinafter to be referred to as the defendants) and during the course of the examination of the plaintiff as a witness he produced the document marked 'X' claiming it as a memorandum of partition. The defendants, however, challenged the admissibility of this document and filed an: application under Sections 17(1)(b) and 49 of the Registration Act read with Order 13, Rules 3 and 6 and Sections 94 and 151, C.P.C., as also under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, alleging that the said document was not admissible in evidence. It was contended that the said document was in fact an ...
Smt. Satya Devi Vs. Ram Gopal Angania and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-01-1986
Reported in: AIR1987HP67
ORDERV.P. Bhatnagar, J.1. Smt. Satya Devi filed an application seeking eviction of respondents 1 to 3 in the court of the learned Rent Controller, Solan on the ground of nonpayment of rent. Respondents 1 to 3 contested the said petition, inter alia, on the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Actually, they set up a title in themselves.2. The learned Rent Controller, Solan, vide his order made on Dec. 22, 1976, found that relationship of landlord and tenant stood established. He, therefore, proceeded to pass an order of eviction with respect to the premises in dispute against respondents 1 to 3 but allowed them to pay the arrears of rent within 30 days in which eventuality the eviction order was not to be operative. The learned Appellate Authority, under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, however, quashed the aforesaid order of eviction vide its judgment dated Feb. 15, 1980 and directed the parties to approach the civil court f...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›