Rajasthan Court September 1949 Judgments
Deepsingh and ors. Vs. Jorsingh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Raj14
1. This is a first appeal by the contesting defendants in a declaratory suit. The pedigree table so far as relevant to the matter in issue is as under : ZORAWAR SINGH _______________________________|__________________ | | Budh singh, His deoen- Sawai Singh dant in many degrees is | Bijoy Singh, the present Jawan Singh Thakar of Thikana Makrana. | Nand Singh _________________________________________________|______ | | | Gopal Singh Sursingh Pratapsingh | | ___________________________|______ Prem Singh Balsingh | | | Gulab Singh Anand Singh Dhokal Singh | ___________|____ _________|__________ | | | | | | Himmatsingh P-5 Hanumansingh P-6 Mool Singh D-3 Deep Singh D-1 |___________________________________________ | | | | | | Shivjising D-4 Narainsingh D-2 Kalyan Singh Jorsingh Monsingh Agarsing P-1 P-2 P-4 | Dhulsingh P-32. Kalyansingh, Jorsingh, Dhulsingh, Monsingh, Himmatsingh and Hanumansingh who are all descendants of Pratapsingh sued Deepsingh, Narsingh, Moolsingh and Shivjisingh in ...
Tag this Judgment!Mt. Gulab Vs. Devilal Gokal Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-26-1949
Reported in: AIR1951Raj136
Amar Singh, J.1. The resp. brought a suit for a declaration that he was the adopted son of one Motilal Mahajan of Bijoliyan & for an injunction that the applt. & Mt. Motiya Bai be restrained from wasting the property of Motilal. He alleged in his plaint that Motilal called him from his village Dhangao in Asoj St. 1995, & kept him as an adopted son & that after Motilal death he performed all the rites & ceremonies relating to his (Motilal) death. The defts. denied the factum as well as the validity of the alleged adoption. The learned munsif Bijoliyan who filed the case came to the conclusion that the adoption was in fact made & it was valid according to the custom prevailing among the Jains to which religion Motilal & the parties belonged. He consequently decreed the suit against both the defts. On appeal the learned Dist. J., Bhilwara modified the decree in that he disallowed the relief for injunction & refused declaration as against Mt. Motiya Bai. So fat as the applt. is concerned, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Lal Vs. Rex
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-19-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Raj17; 1950CriLJ920
ORDERAtma Charan, J.C.1. Heard the parties.2. The applicant stands convicted and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Bs. 500 or, in default of such, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment Under Section 10 of Central Act II [2] of 1930. The applicant pleaded 'guilty' the charge, and as the only point that has been raised or could have been raised on behalf of the applicant in revision is that the sentences err on the side of severity.3. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is about 70 years of age and that his state of health is not good. The Jail Superintendent was asked to report as what was the approximate age of the applicant and as to what was his state of health. He writes-to say that the applicant is about 65 years of age and that his condition of health at present is-good, No question accordingly arises as to why a lenient view of the matter be taken. The applicant was found smuggling about 3o sense...
Tag this Judgment!BadrinaraIn Vs. Chandanmal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-09-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Raj2
Nawal Kishore, J.1. This judgment will dispose of two appeals Nos. 10, 12/1948.49 as they have arisen out of the same case. The facts relating to them are stated in detail in a single bench judgment of this Court dated 14th September 1946 in Civil Appeal case no. 160/1942-43 and therefore only such facts will be set out in this judgment as are directly relevant to the points agitated by the learned counsel in this Court.2. This litigation between the parties arose out of a dispute relating to certain salt business done by them in partnership. It is common ground that at Pachpadra salt business was carried on by the Government of Jodhpur and the British Government separately and this consisted of transporting salt from the salt pits to the Pachpadra railway station. The work of transporting the salt in connection with the business carried on by the British Government was done by Messrs. Badrinarain Chandan Mal, whereas Messrs. Gangabnx Gulabrai were agents of the Government of Jodhpur, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›