Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.53 seconds)

Joti Ram (Dead) Through L.Rs. And Ors. vs Bhagat Singh And Ors. Etc. on 6 January, 2000

Therefore, the ratio laid down in Chuhary's case (1968 (4) Delhi LT 412) and Gulabi's case (1995 AIHC 4821) (supra), would be applicable to the facts of the present case on all fours. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the suits filed by the plaintiff was maintainable before the Civil Court. We, therefore, held that the civil suit filed by a tenant dispossessed without his consent from his tenancy or part thereof, will in our opinion be not barred if it is instituted after the expiry of one year as provided under Section 62 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act. 1953 and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties under the said Act. The regular second appeal shall be decided by the learned single Judge uninfluenced by any expressions or observations made by us in this judgment. No costs.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - L S Panta - Full Document

Reserved On: 25.2.2026 vs Of on 31 March, 2026

19. A Full Bench of the Delhi High Court (Himachal Bench at Shimla) in Chuhary v. Sirtu, 1968 Delhi Law Times, Vol- IV, 412, considered this question and held that a tenant dispossessed without his consent from his tenancy or part thereof could file a civil suit for possession and the same would not be barred and the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide the case.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1