Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967HP1
ORDEROm Parkash, J.C.1. This revision-petition, against an order of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, raises an important question of law, with respect to the appointment of recognized agents, on behalf of the Central Government, for purposes of signing and verifying plaints and written-statements, and acting in suits, instituted, against that Government in Himachal Pradesh, a Union territory. The determination of the question involves the consideration of Order XXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and of the following two notifications :(1) Government of India, Ministry of Law, Notification No. S. R. O. 282 dated the 21st January, 1958. 'In pursuance of Clause (1) of Article 239 of the Constitution and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Law, No. S. R. O. 699, dated the 8th April. 1953, the President hereby directs that the functions assigned to the Central Government by Order XXVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1970CriLJ1303
ORDEROm Parkash, J.1. This order will dispose of criminal revision petitions Nos. 60, 61 and 62 of 1969.2. The police had put up three separate challans, under Section 7, read with Section 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, against the respondent. The case for the prosecution was that Shri Kabul Singh, Inspector of Civil Supplies Department. Dharamsala, had, on the 19th October, 1967, raided the premises of Kishan Chand and Tej Ram situated in village Mitli and the premises of Kalu Bam in village Shekhpur and had recovered 75 bags of rice and 25 bags of gram from the premises of Kishan Chand; 75 bags of rice, 25 bags of gram and 28 bags of wheat from the premises . of Tej Bam and 50 bags of rice, 60 bags of gram and 15 bags of white gram from the premises of Kalu Ram. According to the prosecution, the aforesaid foodgrains had been stored by the respondent without a licence, as required by the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers' Licencing Order, 1964 and the Pun jab Rice Dealers' Licencin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971HP17,1971CriLJ1750
D.B. Lal, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, whereby he has convicted Dharampal aged 17 years. under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The prosecution case may briefly be stated. On 2nd November, 1968 at about 5.00 P.M. Kumari Ishro aged 10 years, who is the daughter of Munshi Ram of village Chhatrer, Tehsil Hamirpur was sent by her father to get grinded wheat at the flour machine of village Toni. The girl returned with a small bag of flour and when she reached the field of one Devi Singh, Dharampal accused had been waiting to meet her. He gave her a push, untied the string of her Salwar and criminally assaulted her. It is stated that when the girl started crying, her mouth was attempted to be gagged by her Dopatta. The penetration had t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971HP24
D.B. Lal, J.1. This is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Civil P. Code and is directed against the decision of the District Judge, Mahasu, whereby he has rejected the application of the appellant, Roop Singh, for grant of interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil P. Code. 2. The facts of the case are, that Roop Singh, plaintiff, filed a suit for declaration in respect of landed property situate in various 'Khewats' belonging to Chak Mau and some Khasra numbers of Chak Kiri, Pargana Shak as well as Chak Pojarli in Tehsil Chopal of the District of Mahasu. The allegation was, that Roop Singh is adopted son of one Ram Singh who was admittedly the owner of this landed property. It was stated that Roop Singh is in physical possession over the property, but Shrimati Nirmu and Shri Karam Singh, defendants, who are respondents before us, claim to possess title for the property, the former being daughter and the latter being brother of the deceased Ram Singh. They also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972HP99
Chet Ram Thakur, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order, dated 15th July, 1968. passed by the District Judge, Sirmur District at Nahan, whereby he accepted the appeal of Ram Sarup and dismissed the appeal of the present appellants. The landowners have filed separate appeals against this order and both of them will be disposed of by this judgment.2. The facts in brief are that the land in question originally belonged to Mahant Gurdyal Singh, who gifted this land in favour of his minor sons, Gurpal Singh and Karanvir Singh, vide mutation No. 58, dated 17th January, 1966, along with other land. This land was in the tenancy of Ram Sarup who filed an application under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for acquisition of the right, title and interest of the landlord in the land.3. The minors who had become owners of this land by virtue of the gift made in their favour by their...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1246
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The appellant is a young man aged 27 years who has been convicted by the Sessions' Judge of Mahasu, Under Section 304. Part II, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment only, and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months' further simple imprisonment.2. The prosecution case was that on 13th of October, 1969. the appellant, while going from Haripur towards Patta, on a road known as 'Brotiwala Road', came across a woman, Smt. Prabhi, aged about 100 years. and quarrelled with her. Then, the appellant is alleged to have thrown stones at the aged woman and injured her. Rattan Lai (P.W. 4), who was said to be following the appellant at some distance, was said to have heard voices and seen the accused throwing stones. The accused is alleged to have run towards Patta when he. saw Rattan Lai. The appellant was chased by Rattan Lai P.W. 4. The appellant was finally caught by Ram Dass (P.W. 6), the Chowkidar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 1971CriLJ1017
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This is an application in revision by the State against the order dated 9-11-1970 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, wherein he has declined to amend and substitute the charge Under Section 304, Indian Penal Code for which the accused, Shiv Ram-Respondent, has been committed for trial before the court of Session, The application arises in the following circumstances.2. The prosecution case arose as a result of a report instituted by one Jiwa Nand of Kosrian Kanaita, District Bilaspur, to the effect that at about 2 a. m. on the night between 17/18th May, 1968 the accused, Shiv Ram, was found giving severe beating with 'danda' to the deceased, Baldev Singh, in the courtyard of his house, with the result that the deceased suffered many injuries of serious nature. He was removed to the hospital and on the next day, i. e on 19-5-1968 at 1-20 p.m. he died in the hospital as a result of the injuries received by him. The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972HP91
Chet Ram Thakur, J.1. In this appeal by the tenant against the order of the learned District Judge, Mahasu, dismissing her appeal against the order of the Compensation Officer the only point that falls for determination is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant comes to an end as soon as the decree for ejectment is passed against the tenant in favour of the landlord by the Assistant Collector for non-payment of the arrears of rent.2. The respondents are owners of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 70, 102 106 and 107, situate in village Khalini, Tahsil Kasumpti, District Mahasu. This land was under the tenancy of Smt. Chinti and her son. The tenant had fallen in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 600/- and, therefore, the land-owners filed a suit against Smt. Chinti and her son Parma Nand on 1st October, 1963 claiming the arrears of rent and for their ejectment. When this suit was pending in the Court of the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Mahasu, the tenant made an application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972HP89
D.B. Lal, J.1. This second appeal filed by the plaintiffs arises out of the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1968 of the District Judge, Dharamsala. Lachhi Ram and five others who are the plaintiffs, came to Court with the allegations, that Ghansara Singh and two others who are the defendants, being proprietors of Khasra Nos. 1025 and 1048 of Tikka Andreta of Palampur Tehsil, have erected a hedging so that their cattle which used to graze over the disputed land, have been stopped from going there. The plaintiffs based their claim on the allegations, that they as well as their ancestors have been using the disputed land for pasturage and their cattle used to go there and rest for the day. It was only recently that the defendants created the obstruction and hence the plaintiffs claimed for a declaration that they had acquired a right of pasturage and that a permanent injuncion is also to be granted in their favour and against the defendants, restraining the latter from interfering i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1972HP67
ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This as an application in revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and has been directed against an order D/- 12-1-1971 of the District Judge, Simla whereby he has modified a certain order of injunction issued at interim stage by the Senior Sub-Judge of Simla. The facts leading to the petition are as follows.2. The plaintiff Shrimati Raj Kumari Suri appeared in Court with the allegations that the defendant Shri Prem Lal Dhiman is constructing a house over a plot of land sold to him by her, but he is also utilising the main passage beyond the point 'AB' leading to her own building and the court premises, shown in her site plan and that the defendant should be prohibited from using this main passage. It was further contended, that the defendant is constructing a wall towards the main passage beyond the point 'AB' and he has opened doors, windows and ventilators in this wall to which he is not entitled. Accordingly the suit was filed for prohibitory injun...
Tag this Judgment!