Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1981HP75
H.S. Thakur, J.1. The appellants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal in short) Mahasu District, on account of the death of Shri Manjeet Singh in a jeep accident. The same was, however, dismissed by the aforesaid Tribunal on 25-7-1969. It was stated in the application that Manjeet Singh, aged 22 years, son of Asa Singh appellant and the brother of other petitioners/appellants was employed as a Sectional Officer in the Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh, and at the time of the accident he was working in Gaura section of Ram-pur Bushahar. On 7-12-1967, he boarded jeep HIM-2458 belonging to the Rampur Division of the Public Works Department bound for Pachhada on Rampur Gaura road which was carrying diesel to the work site. The deceased was travelling in that jeep and was going on duty. At about 5 P. M. the jeep met with an accident at a place 4 miles and one furlong from the starting point of Rampur Gaura Road. The jeep rolled down some ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1982HP29
Vyom Prakash Gupta, J.1. S/Shri Ishwar Dass and Om Prakash filed a suit for possession in respect to the property mentioned in the plaint on the allegations that they are the owners of tha disputed property and that the same was mortgaged with S/Shri Ganga Ram, Sant Ram and Salig Ram. In is alleged that the mortgage was redeemed by the plaintiffs on 26-1-1961. The plaintiffs have further alleged that Tara Chand defendant is in possession of the property in dispute as trespasser and he was never inducted as a tenant by the plaintiffs and if the said Tara Chand defendant had been inducted as a tenant by the mortgagees then this act of the mortgagees was mala fide and the plaintiffs are not bound by the said tenancy created by the mortgagees. This suit was filed in the court of the Senior Sub Judge, Dharamsala on 11-1-1967.2. Defendant Tara Chand contested the suit and contended that the disputed land was given to the defendant's ancestors by plaintiffs' ancestors for residential purposes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1422
ORDERVyas Dev Misra, C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos, 23 and 34 of 1981 since they arise out of the same iudgment.2. These revisions arc directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Simla, holding that the marriage being void the wife could not claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal P.C.3. Rattan Devi (referred to as the wife) filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal P.C. against Padam Singh Kapoor (referred to as the husband) claiming maintenance for herself and her 5on, named Bishan Kapoor, aged about 6 years. It was averred that the husband was working as a teacher in 1968 in village Meber, Tehhil Kalpa, District Kinnaur. The parties came to know each other. The husband married the wife according to the customs of Kinnaur. The custom consists of a male dragging away successfully a female in a dance which results into a marriage. The wife further averred that she had lived with the husband as his wife for a number of years, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1982HP57
Vyom Prakash Gupta, J.1. This regular second appeal has been filed by defendant against the judgment and decree dated 8-6-1979 of District Judge, Hamirpur, by which the learned District Judge accepted the appeal of the plaintiffs-respondents and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents for possession of the disputed property.2. The brief facts are that plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 1 to 6) filed a suit for declaration with respect to the property detailed in the plaint to the effect that they are the owners and in possession of the suit property and in the alternative they prayed for possession of the disputed property. The suit was originally filed in the Court of the Sub Judge, Hamirpur on 31-10-1968 on the allegations that one Gajjan Singh son of Shri Ranu was the owner of the suit land and he died on 26-6-1963 leaving behind the plaintiff No. 1 as his daughter, plaintiff No. 2 as his widow, and plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 6 as sons and daughters of his predeceased daughter Gian Devi....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1981CriLJ1447
H.S. Thakur, J.1. The following question has been referred to this Division Bench for decision:Whether it is open to a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code on the basis of a police report submitted before him by the police after formation of the opinion that in view of the material collected during the course of investigation, no case is made out for sending the accused for trial.2. The facts and circumstances under which the question has arisen may be briefly stated. One Basant Lai lodged the First Information Report No. 58 on 9th June, 1977, at Police Station, Theog, alleging offence under Section 348, I.P.C. against the present petitioners. As a result of the investigation conducted in the case, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the case against the petitioners was politically motivated and that the allegations made in the FIR were all false. The Investigating Officer prepared his report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1982HP50
T.R. Handa, J. 1. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 against the respondents. The learned Tribunal vide its award dated 29-6-1974 dismissed that claim of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has now approached this Court in appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act.2. The case for the appellant is that on 16-6-1968 at about 5 p.m. he along with his two friends Balbinder Singh son of Shri Dogar Singh (P.W. 2) and Sukh-dev Singh (P.W. 3) proceeded from Nan-gal towards Una in private car No. PNU 6483 belonging to his father. The appellant was himself driving the said car. Near a village known as Jalgran which falls between Nangal and Una and is about 1'6 kilometres from Nangal, the car of the appellant developed some mechanical trouble on account of which the appellant stopped the vehicle and parked it on the kacha road on his left side. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1982CriLJ294
T.R. Handa, J.1. Shri Hari Ram appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1976,-was accused of and tried for the offences tinder Section 120-B, 409 read with Sections 109 and 467, IPC by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment recorded ort 28-8-1976 acquitted this appellant of the offences Under Section 120-B as also Under Section 409 read with Section 109, IPC but convicted him for the other offence Under Section 467, IPC For this conviction Shri Hari Ram appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1976 has been filed by Shri Hari Ram convict against the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing him for the offence Under Section 467, T. P. C. Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1977 has been preferred by the State against the order of the learned Sessions Judge in so far as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1982HP62
ORDERH.S. Thakur, J.1. In this revision petition, Shri Tilka Raj petitioner has assailed the order of the learned District Judge, Mandi, Kulu and Lahaul Spiti districts, at Mandi, dated 23rd of April, 1980, who upheld the order of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi, dated 27th November, 1979, appointing Shri Amar Chand Sharma as receiver.2. The facts and circumstances as they emerge from the record may be stated.3. The dispute between the parties relates to a shop situated in Chohatta Bazar, Mandi. The petitioner filed an application under Section 145 Cr. P. C. on 24th April, 1978, alleging that the respondents overlooked the disputed shop in his absence on 1st April, 1978 and were threatening him that in case he entered the shop he would be killed. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned after passing the preliminary order under Section 145 Cr. P. C. recorded the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the actual possession of the shop was with the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
H.S. Thakur, J.1. M.S.A. No. 8 of 1972 has been referred to a Pull Bench by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice (T. U. Mehta) by an order dated 3rd July, 1979. At the time of hearing, M.S.A. No. 9 of 1972 was also connected with M.S.A. No. 8 of 1972. It is desirable to reproduce the said order:'In this case, on behalf of the appellant, two point are submitted, namely (1) the original appellant Durga Dart has died pending this M.S.A. and, therefore, according to the decision given by this Court in Chuhatli v. Bratu reported in ILR (1975) Him Pra 579, the application of the tenant under Section 11 has become in fructuous, and (2) the ownership rights in favour of the tenant cannot be granted in view of the fact that one of the co-owners Durga Datt was physically incapable. In support of this proposition reliance is placed on the decision given by a Division Bench of this Court in Paras Ram v. Bhuru, reported in ILR (1973) Him Pra 31.I have perused both these decisions and in my opinion both o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
T.R. Manda, J.1. The petitioner Shri Ramji Dass filed a suit against the respondents for the recovery of Rs. 500/- in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nalagarh. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23-11-1968 decreed that suit as prayed in favour of the petitioner. An appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was preferred by respondent No. 1 in the Court of the District Judge, Simla. This appeal was admitted by the District Judge on 24-12-1968. The learned District Judge accepted the appeal, reversed the decree of the trial Court and vide his judgment dated 25-7-1969 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff- petitioner.2. The petitioner then filed regular second appeal in this Court against the appellate judgment of the District Judge. That appeal was registered as R. S. A. No. 3 of 1970 in this Court. Later on realizing that in view of the express provisions of Section 42 (2) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 which was then in force, no second appeal could li...
Tag this Judgment!