Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950HP12
Bannerji, J. 1. This is a reference made by the Bagbal Darbar under the provisions of Baghal State Courts Act, 1942, against a judgment and decree dated 22nd October 1945 of the Chief Judicial Officer, Arki, which reversed a judgment and decree dated 19th September 1944 of the District Judge, Baghal State and thereby decreed the suit. 2. The facts in brief are aa follows; One Mt. Bam Rakhi brought a suit in forma pauperis against her father-in-law, Jai Kissen, defendant 1 and her deceased husband's brother, Baran Dat, defendant 2, in the Court of the District Judge, Baghal State, for maintenance for a period of 10 years preceding the suit, at the rate of RS. 20 per month. 3. She alleged that her husband Vidya Dhar had died 10 years ago and she had a daughter about 13 years old by him. She had an illegitimate son aged 9 years born to her by defendant 2, Baran Dat, brother of her late husband. She was turned out of the house by her father-in-law a few months before the birth of this son....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1949HP6
ORDERBannerji, C.J.1. This application comes before me by way of review from the judgment of the Ruler exercising the final authority in all judicial matters as Ijlas-i-Alia under Section 3, Mandi State Courts Act, I [1] of 2002 B.2. The learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner argues that it is competent for Chief Commissioner to entertain this review under Section 4 of the said Act. Though the Ijlas-i-Alia shall consist of His Highness the Ruler, His Highness may in his discretion determine and appoint a Judicial Committee to hear and decide such appeals, revisions or petitions as may, by order of His Highness, be sent for disposal.3. His Highness the Ruler had appointed a Judicial Committee which heard and decided the appeal and made their recommendation to His Highness.4. His Highness, however, did not accept the recommendation and himself decided the case which the learned advocate argues he could not do after having set up a Judicial Committee under Section 5 of the said Act;...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1949HP31
Bennerji, J.C.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated 18th Phagun, 2002, of the High Court, Nahan, reversing a judgment and decree of the District Judge, dated 14th Bhadon,. 2002, and thereby decreeing the suit. The plaintiff brought a suit for pre-emption, alleging that he bad a better right than the defendant to acquire, by way of purchase, the suit property from the vendor. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that he had purchased the property from the vendor and his mother. The property in suit had been given to the vendors by way of gift. The defendant further alleged that he was also a reversioner and as such his rights could not be challenged by the plaintiff. The learned District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the donor was still alive and, therefore, the donee could sell the property to the defendant or to any one else, the donee pleased.2. On appeal, the learned Chief Justice found that the plaintiff and the defendants were no doubt Bandhu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950HP6
Bannerji, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of Appeal, exercising original jurisdiction, dated 31st July 1948, whereby the plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs. 2. The plaintiffs brought the suit for a declaration of their title to sixteen bighas and odd of agricultural land in village Kumin on the allegation that they had perfected a title by prescription for a period of over twenty years. Out of 10 defendants, only a few contested and have resisted the suit on various grounds. The principal grounds were two : '(1) That the plaintiffs' adverse possession did not have all the qualities of adequacy, continuity and exclusiveness, which should qualify such adverse possession. (2) That the plaintiffs' adverse possession was founded on benami transaction and therefore, according to law of Mandi, the benami transaction being void, the adverse possession can have no legal basis.'3. The facts of the case are that the disputed land belonged to one Gadru, who, on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950HP4
Bannerji, C.J.1. These two appeals relate to the same facts and are against a judgment and decree of the Chief Court, Chamba, dated 26-8-2003, affirming a judgment and decree of the District Court, dated 26th Baisakh 2003, and reversing the decree of the Subordinate Judge dated 4th Poh 2002, resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. 2. The only point of law involved in these appeals is, whether a tenant, enjoying cultivable possession for a long period over twelve years but paying half produce or Batai to the land lord, can acquire occupancy rights. 3. The facts in brief are that Moti Singh, the plaintiff, brought the suit for ejectment against one Basu and his brother, Jaimal, sons of Sarda. He brought another suit for ejectment against Mahant. The grounds of both the suits were that Basu, Jaimal and Mahant were tenants-at-will paying half Batai to him as landlord. They were not regularly paying the landlord's share and should, therefore, be ejected. 4. The defence in the fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1949HP1
Bannerji, J.C.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Chief Court, Chamba, dated 9th chet 2003, reversing a judgment and decree of the District Judge, dated 21st Maghar 2003, and restoring the decree of Subordinate Judge dated 32nd Jeth 2003, by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed.2. The plaintiff, Naresh, brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for the restitution of conjugal rights. He alleged that in Bhadon 1995 B., according to the custom of the illaqa, he eloped with one Mt. Hiri, a minor from the lawful guardianship of her mother, Mt. Kanchanu. Soon afterwards, he and his father, Paras Ram, visited the house of Mt. Kanchanu and performed the ceremony of 'Patiara. It may be mentioned here that the ceremony of 'Patiara' is a ceremony of appeasement. Its main purpose is to seoure the consent of the parents of the girl abducted or kidnapped. As observed in the Judicial committee File No. 21 of 2003, Hira v. Matlali and Mt. Bhagwantu etc., it is nec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950HP1
Bannerji, C.J1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree of the Chief Court, dated 23rd Asoj 2003, reversing a judgment and decree of the District Judge dated 17th Bhadon 2003, and restoring the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, dated 2nd Jeth 2003, by which the suit was decreed. 2. One Jaishi Ram, who was made a party to the suit as a defendant but who has not put in his appearance throughout these proceedings, in execution of an ex parte decree obtained by him against the plaintiff Jainand had Jainand's shop sold. The defendant, Gauri Ram, is the auction-purchaser. The shop was sold on 27th Magh 1997 and the sale was confirmed on the same date. The auction purchaser, Gauri Ram, then obtained possession of the shop. 3. In Har 1999, sixteen months after the date of the confirmation of the sale, Jainand brought this suit for a declaration that the sale was illegal and without jurisdiction and should be declared null and void on grounds of fraud practised on the Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950HP35
1. Three accused persons. Bhagi, Bholar and Moti were tried before the Sessions Judge, Chamba, the first two for offences under Sections 302 and 457, Penal Code and the third for offences under Sections 460 and 411, Penal Code. Bhagi and Bholar were found guilty under Section 460, Penal Code and sentenced to transportation for life. Moti was convicted under Section 411, Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The date of the judgment of the trial Judge is 11-6-2004 S. Moti will have served out his sentence by now. He is not an appellant in this Court. Bhagi and Bholar have appealed separately against their conviction and sentence. But as the facts are the same and their conviction and sentence are under the same section of the Penal Code and the same point of law is involved, the judgment will govern both the appeals. 3. The prosecution story is that one Dehnju of the village Taretha, some ten miles from Chamba, was found dead in his house on 3rd Har, 2003. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1949HP21
Bannerji, J.C.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the District Judge dated 20th June 2004 s., decreeing the plaintiff's suit for restitution of conjugal rights.2. The plaintiff, Chandan, brought the suit against Mt. Banto, defendant 1 and her father Durga, defendant 2, on the basis of a 'Nawishat' (agreement). The defendants denied the marriage and Btated that it was only a 'Mangwali' and that the plaintiff did not fulfil the conditions embodied in the said 'Nawishat' dated 6th January 2002 s.3. One of the conditions of 'Nawishat' was that the plaintiff would remain throughout his life as 'Ghar Jawantri' or 'Ghar Jamai' in the house of his wife's father.4. It is admitted that the plaintiff left the house of his alleged father-in-law and brought this suit for taking away his so called wife. The plaintiff's own witnesses Das and Sawan-Din state that the plaintiff left the house of defendant 2 of his own accord.5. Prom the judgment of the District Judge, it appears that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1949HP22
Bannerji, J.C.1. The sub-joined pedigree table will explain the position of the persons to be mentioned: BHAOO _______________________|______________________ | | | | Basia (died Gaji (died Soorjoo Dhania issueless) issueless | | _______________________| Tulsia | | | Mania Arjun (died. | | issueless) | (Plaintiff) | ______________________________| | | Persa married Motia (dead) Mst. Sundru married (died issue Mst. Jess) Malti (dead) Mst. Karmi defendant 2.2. This suit is brought by the plaintiff (respondent) as the only reversionary heir entitled to the property last, held by the widows, Mt. Malti and Mt. Karmi, of Motia. These widows had succeeded to the entire property left by Tulsia on the death of Mt. Sundru and of their husband, Motia.3. The suit was directed against Kunwar Mehar Singh, defendant 1 and Mt. Karmi, defendant 2. Defendant 1 is the purchaser of sisty five bighas and eleven biswas of land in village Bhilru by virtue of a deed of sale, dated 7th April 1942, executed by ...
Tag this Judgment!