Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: himachal pradesh Year: 1956 Page 1 of about 5 results (0.013 seconds)

May 12 1956 (HC)

Budhu Vs. Nahru and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : May-12-1956

Reported in : AIR1956HP50

orderramabhadran, j.c.1. these two revision petitions can be disposed of conveniently by means of one judgment, as they involve common points for determination. in the case of civil revision no. 53 of 1954, a further point for determination arises, as to whether the suit giving rise to it was barred by the provisions of order 2, rule 2, c. p. c. i shall refer to that point also in due course.2. (a) the first point to be considered in both the revision petitions is the value of an entry in the khewat abadi of nagar mandi. the learned district judge has remarked that there was nothing on the record to show under what law the khewat abadi was prepared and what evidentiary value should be attached to the entries therein. he has further remarked that under section 35, evidence act, an entry in any public or other official book, register or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person, in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country, is itself a relevant fact.entries in question were made by the patwari, but in the opinion of the learned district judge, there was nothing to indicate that it was a part of his official duties to make such entries. the entries in the khewat abadi, followed certain mutations ordered by the former ruler of mandi state, in favour of the plaintiff. learned counsel for the petitioner . (mr. d. n. vaidya) argued that the mutation orders were .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 1956 (HC)

Daya Ram and ors. Vs. Jagir Singh and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-29-1956

Reported in : AIR1956HP61

ramabhadran, j.c. 1. this second appeal by defendants arises out of a suit for the possession of 8 bighas and 8 biswas of land situated in village palthi, pargana teun. the plaintiffs' case was that the land in suit had reverted to them alter the death of mt. santi and mt. nazku, w/o prabhu, the last male occupancy tenant. mutation was effected in favour of the plaintiffs on 21-5-f950. the defendants, however, took forcible possession of the land on 15-6-1950. consequently, the plaintiffs contended that the defendants, as trespassers, were liable to be evicted. 2. the suit was resisted by the defendants on various grounds. inter alia, it was contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of daya ram, bali ham and certain other heirs of mt. nazku. in the second place, it was alleged that one khayalu, the common ancestor of the defendants and prabhu (the last male occupancy tenant) had once been in possession of the suit land. on that score, the defendants claimed occupancy rights for themselves. in the third place, the defendants alleged that they were joint occupancy tenants and, therefore, after the death of mt. santi and mt, nazku, the interests of the latter devolved upon them by survivorship. 3. the trial court (subordinate judge first class, bilaspur) directed that daya ham, ball ram and others should be impleaded as parties. on the other issues, it held that khayalu had never been in possession of the land in suit and that the defendants were not joint tenants. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 1956 (HC)

Balak Ram Vs. Surat Ram and ors.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-14-1956

ramabhadran, j.c. (1) in this second appeal by balak ram, defendant no. 3, his learned counsel urged that the courts below have erred in enforcing the terms of the compromise entered into by kashi ram and ruldu (defendants 1 and 2 on one side and mansu, father of surat ram, plaintiff-respondent, on the other, in the court of the district judge of ghund on 26-4-1946. that compromise related to 11 bighas and 5 biswas of land as well as a residential house, situated in village bassa baghain. both the land as well as the house were sold by kashi ram and ruldu in favour of balak ram (the present appellant) on 26-12-1952. surat ram contended that the sale was against the terms of the compromise and, consequently, would not bind him. the trial court (subordinate judge of theog) granted surat ram a decree for possession of the house in dispute. as regards the land, the plaintiff was granted a declaration that the sale effected by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant no. 3 was null and void and would not affect the plaintiff's 'reversionary' rights under the compromise of 26-4-1946. on an appeal being taken by balak ram to the learned district judge (kashi ram having absented himself both at the trial and in the appeal to the learned district judge), the decree for possession of the house in question was maintained. as regards the declaratory decree in respect of the land, the lower appellate court slightly varied the decree of the trial court, i.e., in this way that for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1956 (HC)

ishwar Das Kaushesh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and anr.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-19-1956

Reported in : AIR1956HP55

orderramabhadran, j.c. 1. this is a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution. it arises under the following circumstances:2. the petitioner is the owner of land, measuring 5341 square yards situated on the hospital round at nahan and of a building erected thereupon. on 19-4-1955, through notification no. r. 60-65/55, the revenue department of the himachal pradesh government notified under section 4 of the land acquisition act that the above land was likely to be needed for a public purpose, i.e. for the teachers' training school, nahan. anyone interested in objecting to the acquisition of the above land was required to file his objections in writing to collector of sirmur district within 30 days.on 4-5-1955 another notification, no. r-60-65/ 55, was issued by the revenue department of thehimachal pradesh government, purporting to be under section 6, read with section 17(1) and 17(4), of the land acquisition act, wherein it was stated that the land was required to be taken urgently for a public purpose, namely teachers' training school at nahan, and the collector of sirmur was directed to take order for the acquisition of the said land.notices under section 9 of the land acquisition act were issued by the collector land acquisition, sirmur, calling for objections by 23-5-55. no objections were filed. the petitioner wrote a letter, dated 8-5-1955, to the collector, stating that he had 'no particular point to represent' and adding that he was prepared to hand over .....

Tag this Judgment!

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/ 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 land in question with possession with a third party, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff. therefore, the plaintiff sought a refund of the sum of rs. 11,000/- paid by him to the defendant at the time of the contract. he gave up his claim to recover the further sum of rs. 11,000/-by way of damages.2. the defendant, while admitting the execution of the agreement, ex. p. a, pointed out that on the same day, the plaintiff executed a similar agreement in, his (defendant's) favour, ex. d. d, whereby in .....

Tag this Judgment!

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