Himachal Pradesh Court June 1993 Judgments

Parma Nand Vs. Sudama Ram and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Kamlesh Sharma, J. 1. The dispute between the parties is in respect of the following properties:--(a) Ghair Mumkin Gharat located in Khasra No. 182 measuring 1 Biswa situated in village Sujala. (b) Land measuring 6 Bighas 8 Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 186 to 190 and 192 situate in village Behali. (c) Land measuring 13 Bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 20, 21, 39 and 41 situated in village Sujala, Teh. Arki. 2. Admittedly, the properties in dispute were purchased in the individual name of respondent-defendant No. 1 Sudama Ram and are also recorded as such in the revenue record. The claim of the appellant-plaintiff is that the properties in dispute were purchased with the funds of Joint Hindu Family constituted of him, Sudama Ram and pro forma respondent-defendant No. 2 Chaudhary Ram, who are real brothers. Sudama Ram has disputed this claim and asserted that the properties in dispute are his individual properties purchased from his separate income.3. Both the Courts below have though ...

Kaushalya Devi and ors. Vs. Dr. Lakhbir Sood and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1994ACJ12

Devinder Gupta, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of a common judgment passed on 6th November, 1982, by learned single Judge of this court in F.A.O. Nos. 33 and 35 of 1977 whereby the award made on 16th May, 1977, by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan and Sirmaur Districts, camp at Solan, awarding compensation to late Kishan Swarup Thapar, claimant, was modified.2. Claimant Kishan Swarup Thapar, a practising advocate of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, received serious injuries when Fiat car bearing registration No. DLH 5220 collided with goods carrier truck No. HRA 606 on 25th August, 1970, near post office Kandaghat on Shimla-Kalka National Highway. The car was owned by Dr. Lakhbir Sood and was at the relevant time being driven by his brother Amrit Lal Sood. It was insured with Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd. The claimant had been engaged as a counsel by Amrit Lal Sood for conducting proceedings on his behalf in a case pending in this court, namely, Bhagwan Finance P...

Ruli Ram (Deceased) Through L.R. and ors. Vs. Amar Singh

Court: Himachal Pradesh

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. Since common question of law and facts arises for determination in both the civil revisions, this judgment is meant to dispose of both of them by a common judgment, which otherwise have arisen out of separate proceedings initiated by landlord-respondent against deceased Ruli Ram, tenant-petitioner, who is now represented byhis legal representatives. 2. The respondent-landlord on 26th May, 1984, filed a petition seeking eviction of tenant Ruli Ram from a residential flat located above shops Nos. 80/81. The Mall, Shimla, on the ground that the tenant had got building 'Oak Over Villa', Jakhu in his own right wherein he has acquired vacant possession of a residential set, which has more accommodation than the accommodation in question on the Mall and that the said tenant has rendered himself liable for eviction. The petition was contested by the tenant, who set up a plea that the tenancy was a composite one with that of shop No. 81, The Mall, Shimla. While passin...

Suresh Chand Vs. Hindu Mal and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994HP56

Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. Admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff and pro forma respondents/ defendants are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 1232 situated in Mauza Arhal, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, which was purchased on their name by their father 23 years before the filing of the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen. The suit was filed by the appellant/ plaintiff against late Shri Chiba and respondent/defendant No. 2 for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from obstructing or hindering the path described in the plaint claiming that he along with pro forma respondents/defendants has been using it as of right since they had purchased their land but on 30th April, 1981 the path was obstructed by respondents/defendants by pelting stones on them. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court Shri Chiba has died and his legal representatives have been brought on record as respondents/ defendants 1(a), 1(c) to 1(f). The path in dispute, as state...

Bhagat Singh Negi and ors. Vs. H.P. Housing Board and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994HP60

D. P. Sood, J.1. The petitioners seek the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents prohibiting and restraining respondent No. 1, H. P. Housing Board (shortly hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), from converting the use of the area, shown in Annexure-PA of the Board at Sanjauli for construction of residential or commercial buildings, which was kept reserved for community facilities like play ground and park etc. in the original lay-out plan. They have also sought a direction to respondent No. 1 to provide facilities as promised by it at the time of advertisement for the sale of plots and constructed flats in Sanjauli under its Housing Scheme. 2. The Board acquired land in Sanjauli from the Government in the year 1977-78 against payment with a view to undertake works for the framing and execution of Housing Scheme. Under the Scheme the Board carved out certain plots and separate land for sale of plots and constructed flats. The constructed flats pertaine...

Satish Kumar Vs. B.S. Komal and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

ORDERDevinder Gupta, J. 1. By moving this application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a prayer has been made by the defendants/applicants for stay of proceedings in Civil Suit No. 51 of 1988. It is alleged in the application that the subject matter of the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff/non-applicant arises out of the. partnership deed contaifting an arbitration clause, which envisage that all disputes and differences, if any, amongst the partners, shall be referred to an Arbitrator, who may be appointed by mutual consent of partners. The further allegations are that the applicants are ready and willing to go in for arbitration in respect of the disputes alleged by the plaintiff or with respect to any other disputes arising out of the partnership, in accordance with the arbitration agreement, and that the defendants have not taken any steps in the proceedings and have prayed for stay of proceedings in the suit.2. The application i...

O.P. Neelam Hosiery Works and anr. Vs. State Bank of India and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994HP1

Kamlesh Sharma, J. 1. The appellants-defendants and pro forma respondents-defendants Nos. 2 to 4 suffered a decree for the recovery of Rs. 26,166.90. In order to challenge the decree, the appellants-defendants filed un application under Order 44. C.P.C. accompanied by a Memorandum of Appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Solan, to seek permission to appeal as indigent persons. The application of the appellants-defendants was dismissed by order dated 30th July, 1991 holding that they are not indigent persons and are required to' pay Court-fees on or before 30th August, 1991. The appellants-defendants did not pay the Court-fees and consequently their appeal was also dismissed on 30th August, 1991: Hence the present Regular Second Appeal by the appellants-defendants as indigent persons for which permission has been granted by a separate order of the day today.2. Refusing permission, the District Judge, had observed :--'.....The said business has since been closed down for want of wor...

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Garji Devi and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: 1993ACJ804

Devinder Gupta, J.1. The order passed on 22nd May, 1990, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti Districts at Mandi, H.P., directing the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge in this appeal.2. One Nika Ram expired in a fatal accident. On 11th April, 1990, respondent Nos. 1 to 4, claiming to be the widow and minor children, preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal. Notices were directed to be issued to the appellants as also to respondent No. 5 for 22nd May, 1990. It is the appellants' case that notices were received a few days prior to the date fixed in the case, which was not accompanied by any copy of the petition. The appellants put in appearance through their counsel on 22nd May, 1990, on which date they were not aware of the facts or particulars of the case or the claim laid by ...

Bala Ram and ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and ors.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994HP5

Devinder Gupta, J. 1. The order passed on 25th July, 1991 by the Additional District Judge, Nahan, Sirmaur District Camp at Solan, is under challenge in this revision petition at the behest of the plaintiffs, who were respondents in the appeal before the lower appellate court. The facts giving rise to the revision petition may be narrated. 2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners in the court of Sub Judge, Kandaghat, wherein they claimed a decree for declaration that they, along with pro forma defendants, are the owners in possession of the suit land according to the shares, as per Shajra Nasab and the entries in the revenue record as also certain mutations were illegal, against facts and had no effect on their rights and also that they along with pro forma defendants alone had got a right to get compensation in respect . of the part of the suit property, which had been acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh. After a protracted trial, the suit was decreed on 22nd June, 1987...

Balak Ram Mahajan (Deceased) Through L.Rs. Virendra Kumar Gupta and or ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: AIR1994HP10

Devinder Gupta, J. 1. By this judgment, we propose to decide C.W.P. No. 484 of 1984 and C.W.P. No. 163 of 1986, since the primary question of consideration arising for determination is same and similar. Before considering the question arising for determination, facts of the two petitions are being given separately.2. Petitioner Balak Ram Mahajan (now deceased) in C.W.P. No. 484/84 sought direction against the respondents for grant of payment to him of freedem fighter's pension, in accordance with the Freedom Fighters' Pension Scheme 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 scheme) w.e.f. 15th August, 1972 and for declaring Clause 4 of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 1980 Scheme) as unconstitutional and as a consequence to quash orders Annexures R-l and R-2 passed by respondent No. 1 declining to grant pension to him. Balak Ram Mahajan alleged that he was a resident of village Baggi in the erstwhile princely State of Mandi. Praja Manda...