Himachal Pradesh Court June 1989 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.
Smt. Banti Devi Vs. Moti Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990HP35,I(1990)DMC219
N.M. Kasliwal, C.J.1. The parties were married according to Hindu rites on 30-11-1975. After a short span of about three years, the relations between the parties became strained and the wife, Smt. Banti Devi had to leave the house of her husband, Moti Ram. The wife then filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband did not contest the said petition and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was given ex parte on 10-5-1983. Even after the said decree, there was no restitution of conjugal rights, as such the wife filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act for judicial separation on 6-8-1984. The wife in this petition also levelled an allegation that the husband had married another woman. This petition was also not contested by the husband and was allowed ex parte by judgment dated 12-10-1984. After the said decree for judicial separation, the husband filed the present petition fo...
Smt. Uma Devi and ors. Vs. Maharaja Sir Partap Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-07-1989
Reported in: AIR1990HP62
V.K. Mehrotra, J.1. Nabha was a Princely State in pre-independence India. It was one of the three Phulkian States. The other two were Patiala and Jind.2. In matter of succession to Chiefship, the Phulkian families normally followed the rule of primogeniture. This was true also of the Ruling family of Nabha. The Chiefship went to the eldest son. Provision was made for the younger sons for their maintenance by grant of Jagir, land or purse.3. When the British became the paramount power in India, the effective control in respect of the various rights of the ruling Princes passed into their hands. They subjected the ruling chiefs to various restrictions. One such restriction was about purchase of property outside the territory of their own State. Office Orders were issued from time to time by the Political Department. One such office order (No. XXXV -- found in the compilation of Rules and Office Orders of Political Department of Punjab Government Edition 1908) said that :'The Government o...
Kundan Lal Ahuja Vs. Surinder Nath
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-01-1989
Reported in: AIR1991HP7
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, C.J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision by the tenant has been filed under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was a tenant in premises forming part of a building known as Naish Villa Annexe, Lower Jakhu, Shimla. A petition for eviction was filed on 15-12-1979. The eviction was sought on several grounds, but the Rent Controller (I) Shimla found one ground alone in favour of the landlord for granting the decree for eviction. The said ground was that the tenant, Kundan Lal, had acquired vacant residence.2. Tenant Kundan Lal, aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller, filed appeal which came up for consideration before the Appellate Authority (I) Shimla. During the pendency of the appeal, an amendment was made in Section 14(3)(a)(iv) of the Act. According to this amendment, the landlord was required to prove that the tenant has, whether before or after the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›