Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: judges inquiry act 1968 preamble 1 judges inquiry act 1968 Sorted by: old Court: himachal pradesh Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.126 seconds)

Jan 14 1956 (HC)

Sudarshan Vs. Chuha Singh

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-14-1956

Reported in : AIR1956HP28

Ramabhadran, J.C.1. These are two cross-appeals, which arise out of a suit on the basis of a contract for the sale of land, measuring 230 bighas 12 biswas and 10 biswansis, situate in village Badhwan Kasurla, ilaqa Bahl, Tehsil Sadar, district Mandi. On 21-5-1949, (corresponding to 8th Jeth, 2006) Sudarshan, defendant, executed an agreement, Ex. P. A, whereby he undertook to sell the land mentioned above to the plaintiff, Mian Chuha Singh, and one Hem Prabh in equal shares for a total consideration of Rs. 22,000/-.In the body of the agreement, Sudarshan admitted receipt of half the sale consideration, namely, Rs. 11,000/-. The balance was to be paid, when the sale-deed was registered. In the event of any default on the part of the defendant, he was to make good to the plaintiff, not only the sum of Rs. 11,000/- already received, but a further sum of Rs. 11,000/- by way of damages.The plaintiff's case was that the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract and mortgaged the la...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 30 1956 (HC)

Pitambar Das Vs. Rajmata Srimati Shanti Devi

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Jul-30-1956

Reported in : AIR1957HP23

Ramabhadran, J.C. 1. The suit, out of which this second appeal by a defendant, has arisen, has had a chequered career. Rajmata Shanti Devi of Bushahr instituted a suit against Pitambar Das (the appellant in this Court) for the recovery of Rs. 3,000 on 5-12-1950. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court (Senior Subordinate Judge of Mahasu) on 31-12-1951. The plaintiff then went up in appeal to the learned District Judge, who, on 21-8-1952, remanded the suit to the trial Court with certain instructions. Against that remand order, the defendant Pitambar Das came up in revision to this Court. My learned predecessor, on 3-6-1953, set aside the order of remand made by the District Judge and submitted, therefor, an order under Order 41, Rules 25, Civil P. C. The Court of first instance allowed the plaintiff to amend her plaint, so as to enable her to fall back upon the original consideration. It then made the necessary inquiry and submitted its report on 2-8-1954. The learned District Judge ...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //