Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: old Court: himachal pradesh Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 18 results (0.008 seconds)

Feb 28 2012 (HC)

Dilu Alias Tilu Vs. Devta Risha of Kanda

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Feb-28-2012

kuldip singh, j. oral: 1. the defendant has come in second appeal against judgment, decree dated 17.5.2002 passed by learned district judge, kullu, in civil appeal no. 5/2002, affirming judgment, decree dated 27.11.2001 passed by learned senior sub judge, kullu, in civil suit no.216 of 99. 2. the brief facts of the case are that respondent had filed a suit for declaration that respondent is owner in possession of the suit land, more specifically described in the plaint, as per copy of jamabandi for the year 1996-97. it has been alleged that respondent is owner in possession of the suit land. the revenue entries showing the appellant as tenant in possession of the suit land are wrong and contrary to factual position on spot and are not binding on the respondent. the appellant has no right, title or interest over the suit land. it has been alleged that when the jamabandi for the year 1996-97 was prepared, the appellant without notice, knowledge and behind the back of respondent and in connivance with the revenue officials got his name recorded as tenant under the respondent over the suit land. the respondent never inducted the appellant as tenant nor the appellant is in possession of the suit land. the rapat no.299 dated 26.5.1997 is wrong, illegal and respondent is not bound by such rapat. the consequential relief of permanent injunction was also prayed. 3. the suit was contested by appellant by filing written statement. it has been pleaded that the appellant has not .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 2012 (HC)

Dhani Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) to the Government of Hi ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : May-07-2012

Reported in : 2012AIR(HP)76

rajiv sharma, j. 1. material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner had instituted civil suit in the court of sub judge 1st class (1), kangra bearing civil suit no.134 of 1988 for declaration to the effect that he was in exclusive possession as co-owner over the land comprising khata no. 120/min/110 red harra, khatauni no. 228, khasra no. 413 measuring 0-11-96 hectares. according to him, entry made in favour of respondent no.2 as gair maurushi tenant over this khasra number was contrary to the spot position. according to him, the same was liable to be changed in his favour. suit was contested by respondent no.2. according to him, he was in possession of the suit land, including other khasra numbers and has become owner in possession of the suit land after the enactment of h.p. tenancy and land reforms act. learned trial court framed the following issues on 16.11.1988: 1. whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? opd. 2. whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? opd. 3. whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? opd. 4. whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? opd. 5. whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? opd. 6. whether the defendant is in possession of the suit land since long and has become owner of the same by virtue of h.p. tenancy and land reform act? opd. 7. whether the plaintiff is .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 2012 (HC)

Raj Mal and Others Vs. Shrimati Premo and Others

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : May-21-2012

1. this regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2001, passed by the learned district judge, chamba division, chamba, h.p. in civil appeal no. 61 of 1999. 2. material facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal, are that the respondent-plaintiff, namely, smt. premo devi (hereinafter referred to as ??the plaintiff ? for the sake of convenience) has filed a suit against the appellants defendants, namely, s/sh. saran, paras ram, manohar lal, raj mal, hans raj, jiwan singh, surinder kumar and kram chand (hereinafter referred to as ??the defendants ? for the sake of convenience), seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 12.07.1996 executed by sh. saran, predecessorin- interest of appellants no. 6(a) to 6(c) in favour of defendants, namely, s/sh. paras ram, manohar lal, raj mal, hans raj, jiwan singh, surinder kumar and karam chand, was illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff as she has become owner of the suit land bearing khasra no. 1414, measuring 0-15 bighas, khata khatauni no. 187/245, measuring 1-18 bighas, situated in mauza chowari jarei, pargna chowari, tehsil bhatiyat, district chamba, h.p., as per jamabandi for the year 1990-91. according to the plaintiff, previously mangat ram was the owner in possession of khata khatauni no. 35/46 of mohal lanoh and 1/3rd share of khata khatauni no. 134/216 of mohal chowari jarei, tehsil bhatiyat, distt. chamba, h.p. shri mangat ram made .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 2012 (HC)

Sohan Lal Vs. AmIn Chand and Others

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-17-2012

rajiv sharma, j. 1. this regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.02.2002, passed by the learned district judge, mandi, h.p. in civil appeal no. 111 of 1999. 2. material facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ??the plaintiff for the sake of convenience), had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent/proforma respondent/defendants (hereinafter referred whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes. to as the ??defendants for the sake of convenience). the suit was originally filed against shri brij lal, father of defendant no. 1, now represented by his legal representatives, shri amin chand and shri tulsi ram, who were impleaded as proforma defendants. according to the plaintiff, the land comprised in khasra nos. 85, 113, 115 and 120, measuring 0-05-83 hectares, situated in village luharda was recorded in the ownership and possession of defendant no. 1 in the revenue record. according to the plaintiff, the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff, original defendant no. 1 and proforma defendant by way of oral sale in 1969 from one krishan dass, for a consideration of rs.1600/- jointly and the consideration was paid by all the parties, who were put in possession, but the mutation was wrongly sanctioned in favour of the original defendant no. 1 on 14.07.1969 and the revenue entries were entered .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2012 (HC)

Sh. Palo Ram Vs. Guari and Others

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-30-2012

kuldip singh, j. 1. the plaintiff has come in second appeal against judgment, decree dated 13.11.2000 passed by learned district judge, whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes chamba, division chamba in civil appeal no.45 of 1999, reversing judgment, decree dated 31.7.1999 passed by learned sub judge ist class, dalhousie, district chamba in civil suit no.5/95. some of the parties originally before the trial court have died, some names have been deleted, therefore, in this judgment the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants. 2. the plaintiff palo ram filed the suit for declaration that he has become owner of the land measuring 13-15 bighas, specifically described in the plaint and for possession of said land. the pleaded case of the plaintiff is that suit land is entered in the name of the defendants as mortgagors and plaintiff as mortgagee as per jamabandi for the year 1989-1990. the suit land was mortgaged with the plaintiff much prior to the year 1953 before settlement. farangu one of the owners during settlement admitted that suit land had been mortgaged to plaintiff for a consideration of `250-/ and plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. on that basis mutation was entered and attested on 10.9.1953. farangu one of the mortgagors in the year 1967 sold his rights in the suit land to defendants no.1,2 and chuni, who expired in the year 1984 and defendants no.1,2 inherited the estate of chuni. the plaintiff was in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 31 2012 (HC)

Manjit Singh Vs. Rajinder Singh and Others

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Dec-31-2012

dharam chand chaudhary, j. 1. aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.6.2000 passed by the learned district judge, sirmaur at nahan in civil appeal no. 119-ca/13 of 2000/1999, dismissed thereby the civil suit bearing no.68/1 of 1990/t- 23/1/1991 on reversal of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court decreed on 30.3.1999, the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, has approached this court by filing the present appeal with the prayer to set aside the same. 2. the challenge to the judgment and decree impugned before this court in the present appeal is on the ground, inter-alia, that the land entered in khata-khatauni no. 8min/33, khasra no.491/304, measuring 5 biswas, situated in village shamsherpur, tehsil paonta sahib, hereinafter referred to as the suit land, was ancestral and the family consisting of plaintiff and defendants no.2 and 3 being a joint hindu family, was governed by mitakshra hindu law and the findings so recorded by the trial court were erroneously set aside. according to the plaintiff, since the defendants miserably failed to prove that the suit land was sold to defendant no.1 for legal necessity, therefore, the suit was rightly decreed by the trial court. however, the decree so passed has been erroneously set aside by the learned lower appellate court. further, according to the plaintiff-appellant, a new case is made out by the learned lower appellate court by concluding that the suit property was of joint hindu family but not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2012 (HC)

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Rafiq Mohammad

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-04-2012

sanjay karol, j. oral: 1. this is the case of prosecution that on 23.8.2004, accused went to the shop of keshav sahni (pw-1) to purchase ten pieces of t-shirts. items were selected and price contracted. accused tendered two currency notes of denomination of ` 1000/- each towards the sale consideration. pw-1 keshav sahni noticed that perhaps currency notes handed over by the accused were not genuine, as such he informed the police. rojnamacha (p-j) was recorded by the police on the basis of which f.i.r no.264/2004 (ex. pl) dated 7.12.2004 was registered with police station solan under sections 489-b, 489-c and 420 of indian peal code. police commenced investigation and si anant ram (pw-9, inspector(sho) smt. babita rana (pw- 10) investigated the matter along with asi ratan chand(pw-7) and h.c madan lal (pw-6). four more currency notes of similar denomination were recovered from the possession of the accused. deputy manager of punjab national bank, solan namely mahesh gambhir (pw-2) examined the currency notes and found the same to be fake and counterfeit. police recorded the statement of witnesses. police later got recovered eleven more currency notes of similar denomination from the residence of the accused. recovery of currency notes were carried out in the presence of robin hatti, chandermohan and yoginder kumar. currency notes were sent to f.s.l, junga where meenakashi mahajan(pw-8) assistant director documents and photographic division, gave opinion ex. pk. with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 2012 (HC)

Court on Its Own Motion Vs. the Government of Himachal Pradesh Through ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-11-2012

rajiv sharma, j. oral: 1. the court has taken cognizance of the letter addressed by satvir kaur dated 7.9.2011. the gist of the letter is that though the f.i.r. has been registered after the directions issued by this court in cr.w.p. no. 22/2010, however, investigation has not been carried out in the case in objective and fair manner. notice was issued to the respondents on 22.9.2011. thereafter, detailed orders were passed by this court on 19.10.2011 and 24.11.2011. the matter was taken up today. 2. petitioners husband has not come home after 6.6.2010. initially, even an f.i.r. was not registered by the police. the petitioner approached this court by way of cr.w.p. no. 22/2010 seeking direction to the police to register f.i.r. cr.w.p. no. 22/2010 was disposed of by this court on 24.2.2011 directing the police to register the f.i.r. petitioner was also awarded special compensation of ` one lakh. the f.i.r. though has been registered on 24.2.2011, but it is evident from the affidavits filed by the respondents that they have treated this case as a simple case of missing person. 3. mr. j.k. verma, learned deputy advocate general submits that special team was constituted on 20.7.2011 and the same was reconstituted on 12.10.2011 to investigate the matter. the f.i.r. though registered on 24.2.2011, but till date the investigation carried out by the police department is not satisfactory. the investigation teams have only recorded the statements of the family members and they have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2012 (HC)

Sonu Kumar, Resident of Village Dharwahan, Police Station Vs. State of ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-01-2012

Reported in : 2012CrLJ3210

sanjay karol, j. 1. in terms of judgment dated 27.11.2008, passed by the ld. sessions judge, mandi, h.p. in sessions trial no.9 of 2008, titled as state vs. sonu kumar, i.e. the accused (the present appellant) stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 366-a and 376 of the indian penal code, 1860 (referred to as i.p.c.). he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years in relation to each of the offences and also to pay fine of `.10,000/- each, and in the event of default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each. 2. it is the case of prosecution that on 5.10.2007, prosecutrix (pw-11) aged about 13-14 years, student of 8th standard, was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused who lives in her neighbourhood, under promise and inducement of marriage. out of fear she did not disclose the incident to anyone, and also left her house on 6.10.2007 to an undisclosed place. eventually, her parents found her at sundernagar and brought her home on 7.10.2007. she narrated the incident to them. they took her to the police station, balh and got fir no.290 (ex.pw13/a) recorded on 7.10.2007 at 7:00 p.m. copy of the fir was immediately sent to the concerned magistrate for information. s.i. beant singh (pw-14) was asked to investigate the matter. prosecutrix was immediately sent for medical examination which was conducted by dr. anita thakur (pw-8), medical officer posted at the zonal hospital, mandi. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2012 (HC)

Shamsher Singh Vs. Smt. Jasbir Kaur, Resident of Village and Post Offi ...

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-06-2012

Reported in : 2012AIR(HP)83

dev darshan sud, j. 1. this appeal has been preferred by shri shamsher singh, great grandfather of the minor satinder pal singh whose custody has been claimed by respondent smt.jasbir kaur being her mother and natural guardian and granted as such by the learned court below. 2. the brief facts of the case are that a petition under section 6 of the hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956 read with sections 7, 8 and 10 of the guardian and wards act, 1890 was instituted by the respondent claiming custody of the minor. she pleaded that the minor satinder pal singh was born on 16.2.2000 out of her wedlock with jasdev singh who died on 6.1.2000. she became a widow at a very young age and with the consent of the parents of her late husband jastev singh she remarried and out of that wedlock she has two children. the case pleaded is that in order to facilitate this marriage, the custody of the minor was handed over to the grandfather kishan singh for a short period for which purpose agreement ex.rw-1/a was executed between the parties. it is undisputed before me that shri kishan singh has since died and now the custody of the child is with the appellant who is his great grandfather who is more than eighty years of age. the mother claimed custody of the child inter alia on the ground that she is the natural mother; is in a better position to look after the interest of the child, to provide him good education and medical treatment required by the minor. it is also undisputed before me .....

Tag this Judgment!


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