Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: himachal pradesh Year: 1955 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.008 seconds)

Oct 10 1955 (HC)

Prem Chand and anr. Vs. Lilawati Shanti and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-10-1955

Reported in : AIR1956HP16b

ramabhadran, j.c. 1. this is an appeal by two defendants, which arises out of a suit for declaration and possession. the suit was filed by shrimati lilawati, daughter of lazar, a predeceased son; of samuel. prem chand (defendant no. 1) and, timtawas (defendant no. 2) are the sons of samuel, while srimati shanti (defendant no. 3) is a daughter of samuel. garis chand (defendant no. 4) is the son of srimati tabina, another daughter of samuel, while srimati premi (defendant no. 5) is similarly the daughter of srimati ester, yet another daughter of samuel. samuel died on 1-6-1948, leaving lands and. other properties in village melan, sub-tehsil kumarsain, district mahasu. his property has been mutated in the names of prem chand and timtawas, defendants 1 and 2, and they have taken possession thereof. the plaintiff's case was that parties, being indian christians, are governed, in matter of succession, by the provisions of succession act, 1925. accordingly, she claimed one sixth share of the property left by samuel. since defendants 1 and 2 refused to concede her claim, she had to file the suit. the other defendants were impleaded as they were also coheirs of the property left by samuel. consequently, the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that she was entitled to one-sixth of the property left by samuel and for possession of that share.,. 2. defendants 4 and 5 admitted the plaintiff's claim, but asked for no relief for them selves. the remaining defendants, i.e. defendants 1 to 3, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 15 1955 (HC)

Luharo and ors. Vs. Lafiya and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-15-1955

Reported in : AIR1955HP61

orderramabhadran, j.c.1. i have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of court-fee. learned counsel for the appellants argued that the suit, giving rise to this appeal, was really one for declaration and the prayer for correction of the entries in the revenue records was an unnecessary surplusage. in fact, he pointed out that the civil court could not legally direct the correction of the revenue record. he, therefore, contended that as a suit for declaration, the court-fee paid, i.e., rs. 15/-, was in accordance with schedule ii, article 17 (iii), court-fees (himachal pradesh amendment) act, 1952.2. learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that we must look to the plaint as it stands. he urged that it was immaterial whether the consequential relief, claimed in the plaint, could be granted by the civil court or not.3. it seems to me that, in construing the plaint, the court must look at the substance of the plaint rather than at its mere form. i am supported in this view by-- 'verkata ranga rao v. sitarama chandra rao', air 1941 mad 91 (a), where wadsworth, j., observed as follows: 'in matters of court-fee and pecuniary jurisdiction, the real substance of the suit and not the form in which it has been clothed, should be looked to.'4. in--tewary kora v. bhupat mander', air 1919 pat 13 (1) (b), the facts were that the plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they were occupancy tenants and not mere tenure-holders. they further prayed for a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1955 (HC)

Kahan Chand Vs. Gyan Chand

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-10-1955

Reported in : AIR1956HP41

ramabhadran, j.c. 1. this appeal had come up before this court on an earlier occasion, when, as per my learned predecessor's order dated 9-6-1953, the lower appellate court was directed to take action under order 23, rule 3 and to submit its findings to this court. in pursuance of that order, the senior subordinate judge of mahasu has made an inquiry into the alleged compromise. his findings are:-- firstly, that the parties arrived at a, compromise and that its terms are embodied in ex. p. a. secondly, that the compromise was lawful, and, thirdly, that the compromise did not need registration or to be stamped. in view of his findings, the senior subordinate judge was of the opinion that the suit had been 'completely adjusted.' thereupon, he goes on to remark:--'since the compromise deed includes properties that are not included in the suit, the parties will have to fall back on the compromise deed and act or get enforced their rights and liabilities arising therefrom. so far as the present suit is concerned, the same in my opinion stands adjusted.'2. objections to the report of the lower appellate court have been filed by the respondent, but not by the appellant. the appellant, however, was allowed, during the course of arguments, to show cause against the report of the senior subordinate judge.3. i have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length. as far as the factum of compromise is concerned, i am of the opinion that the court below has rightly held that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

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